Search: condonation of delay

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited on 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a), has used the expression `indicated in the audit report’. The word `indicated’ is wider in amplitude than the word `reported’, which envelopes both the direct and indirect reporting. Even if there is some indication

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

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

36(1)(iii) of the Act, disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, disallowance of business promotion expenses. Apart from these disallowances the Assessing Officer considered even the suomoto adjustments i.e., the disallowance of ₹.4.0572 crores as made by the assessee in its revised return of income for disallowance while computing the income by the Assessing Officer. This shows the Assessing

KOLHAPUR MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2778/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia) of the Act; (ii) Rs.1,50,000/- on account of provision made for standard assets; (iii) Rs.3,86,539/- on account of unclaimed dividend; (iv) Rs.2,80,000/- on account of nominal membership fee and (v) Rs.34,300/- on account of entrance fee, totaling to Rs.31,50,839/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before

THE DEOLA MERCHANTS CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1561/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1560 & 1561/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Deola Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bhagyodaya, At Post – Deola, Tal-Deola, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Nashik – 423102 …. Pan: Aaaat4787E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

delay of 14 days in filing the appeals late before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. The assessee in ITA No.1560/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred

THE DEOLA MERCHANTS CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1560/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1560 & 1561/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Deola Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bhagyodaya, At Post – Deola, Tal-Deola, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Nashik – 423102 …. Pan: Aaaat4787E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

delay of 14 days in filing the appeals late before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. The assessee in ITA No.1560/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred

KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

ITA 946/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 253(1)

condoning the delay when there was sufficient cause. 2. The ld AO erred in law and on fact in making addition of Rs 19,77,900/- as salary income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 4. Without touching grounds & merits of the case, we have heard

M/S LOKMANGAL MAULI INDUSTRIES LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE -1, , SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 96/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1 )(va) of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01/04/2021 and hence not applicable to the Assessment year 2017- 18. The appellant hereby prays that the disallowance of Rs. 14,83,912/- may please be deleted. 3. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground/s of appeal.” 2. Admittedly

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

ITA 2646/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22,14,956/- to Rs.6,00,43,067/- and the assessee should have shown the difference of opening and closing inventory of traded goods in Profit and Loss Account. However, the effect of change in inventory on this account

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

ITA 2647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22,14,956/- to Rs.6,00,43,067/- and the assessee should have shown the difference of opening and closing inventory of traded goods in Profit and Loss Account. However, the effect of change in inventory on this account

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

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

AJIT ABDULMAJID MAHAT,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 722/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 4. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees’ contribution to provident fund

DATWYLER PHARMA PACKAGING I P LTD,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 98/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits 3. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees‟ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees‟ contribution

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 718/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits 4. The only issue involved in both these appeals is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 719/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits 4. The only issue involved in both these appeals is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees

MINILEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1147/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of Employee's Contribution to Provident fund without appreciating the fact that it was paid before the due date of filing of Return of Income. The learned AO ought to have granted deduction u/s 43B of the ITA, 1961. 3. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in making