MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE JUNIOR COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

DEEP AUTOMOTIVE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) emanating from assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 04.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1) The Id. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal refusing to condone the small delay of 32

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The loss and depreciation referred to in clause (ii) and clause (iii) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to have been given full effect to and no further deduction for such loss or depreciation shall be allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

delay in filing of the audit report was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and this case is squarely covered under the exceptions provided in CBDT's Instruction No. 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978. He, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. So far as the issue of assessment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

delay in filing of the audit report was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and this case is squarely covered under the exceptions provided in CBDT's Instruction No. 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978. He, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. So far as the issue of assessment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

delay in filing of the audit report was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and this case is squarely covered under the exceptions provided in CBDT's Instruction No. 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978. He, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. So far as the issue of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

delay in filing of the audit report was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and this case is squarely covered under the exceptions provided in CBDT's Instruction No. 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978. He, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. So far as the issue of assessment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

delay in filing of the audit report was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and this case is squarely covered under the exceptions provided in CBDT's Instruction No. 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978. He, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. So far as the issue of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

delay in filing of the audit report was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and this case is squarely covered under the exceptions provided in CBDT's Instruction No. 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978. He, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. So far as the issue of assessment

PRASANNA SHRIKANT PATANKAR,SATARA vs. ITO WD NO - 04, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

32,173/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 07.12.2024 as evident from Form No.35. 3. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 604 days. 3 ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 [A] 3.1 Assessee had filed an Affidavit before ld.CIT(A) for condonation of Delay part of which has been reproduced

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

delay in filing of Form10B is hereby condoned and it is directed that the appellant be allowed exemption as would be due to him as per law. The ld. AO is directed accordingly.” 05. Similar issue was also deal with by this Tribunal in Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust (supra), where also the facts are almost 8 identical and the assessee