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 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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE vs. SHIVAI VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

34,363/- as taxable income without considering any expenses. As no specific reason for denial of claim of exemption has been assigned by the Ld. CPC/AO it is alleged that the same might be on account of the delay in filing of Form 10B. 3. Aggrieved by such intimation order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

1,48,985/- Rs.38,58,318/- Total 4. Since the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 34 and ½ months from the service of the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of delay by observing as under: “DECISION 4.1 The appellant in its appeal has assailed

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

delay of 46 minutes in filing the return of income, a deduction of Rs. 2,34,41,162/- is denied to assessee. 7. Section 80AC provides that deduction u/s 80IC shall be allowed to assessee if the return is filed on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139. However, section 139(4) carves

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which (a) he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or [sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which (a) he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or [sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which (a) he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or [sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which (a) he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or [sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion

FATIMABAI HAJIMIYA KOKANI PVT TRUST.,NASHIK vs. ITO (EXEP) WARD 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh 3 Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt. Trust Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 234C of the Act, without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 13. Each of the aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other. 14. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute, and to withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 234C of the Act, without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 13. Each of the aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other. 14. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute, and to withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private

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

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

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