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

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

33 of the said Audit Report was regarding deduction Chapter VIA, in the said column the auditor has mentioned “NIL”. The Ld.DR submitted that the Auditor has also certified that there is no claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act as the auditor has mentioned “NIL ” in the relevant coloumn. The said Audit report was signed

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and proceed to decide both the appeals. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The learned CIT(Ex.) erred in rejecting application filed by the appellant in Form 10AB for approval under sub clause (iii) of 12A(1)(ac) without appreciating that the said action was not justified

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI ,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and proceed to decide both the appeals. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The learned CIT(Ex.) erred in rejecting application filed by the appellant in Form 10AB for approval under sub clause (iii) of 12A(1)(ac) without appreciating that the said action was not justified

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

33,378/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed on 28.06.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

33,378/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed on 28.06.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, ABCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

33,28,20,331/-. He noted that the surplus to net receipt ratio for various years in the case of assessee is as below:- Sr. No AY Gross receipt Surplus % age of surplus to receipt 1 2012-13 458649931 148679535 32.5% 2 2013-14 520814778 154425682 29.6% 3 2014-15 595291950 243351386 40.9% 4 2015-16 645741318 250080360 38.7% 5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, APCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

33,28,20,331/-. He noted that the surplus to net receipt ratio for various years in the case of assessee is as below:- Sr. No AY Gross receipt Surplus % age of surplus to receipt 1 2012-13 458649931 148679535 32.5% 2 2013-14 520814778 154425682 29.6% 3 2014-15 595291950 243351386 40.9% 4 2015-16 645741318 250080360 38.7% 5

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. 2. Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory). Current Loss of Rs.9,50,99,095/- was furnished in its return of income

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. 2. Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory). Current Loss of Rs.9,50,99,095/- was furnished in its return of income

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. 2. Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory). Current Loss of Rs.9,50,99,095/- was furnished in its return of income