KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

35 that the affidavit for condonation will be submitted at the time of hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without deciding the issues on merits on the ground that the assessee has not provided a plausible explanation for the said delay. The relevant observations and findings

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

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of 31-32[Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred

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

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

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

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

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

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

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

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

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-(TDS),- , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

SOLO RESEARCH FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.216 & 217/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:- Solo Research Foundation, V The Commissioner Of Office No.50/51, B12 S Income Tax(Exemption), Shardaram Park, Sasoon Road, Pune. Pune – 411001. Pan: Aaxcs3760K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rahul Kaul – Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12Ar.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Both Dated 28.11.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time;] 5. Since the Assessee was already having registration u/s.12AA of the Act, as per Amended Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, the Assessee was required to apply for registration within the three months from 1st April, 2021. The time limit of three months from