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

2 minutes, which was caused due to technical glitch and last hour rush in the website, cannot be held against the assessee and accordingly the Assessing Officer was directed to treat the return filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 as filed in time and consequently to consider the revised return filed by the assessee for the purpose

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 (Pune).\n2. Bhagyalaxmi Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Meryadit vs. ITO,\n14.03.2022.\n3. Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit,\nAssessment Order passed for the A.Y. 2014-15.\n4. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ahmednagar District Central Co-\noperative Bank Ltd., [2003] 264 ITR 38 (BOM).\n5. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amravati District Central Co-\noperative Bank Ltd., 24th February

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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

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

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and duly served on the assessee through e-proceedings. In response thereto, the assessee has furnished the required information/documents. The assessment was completed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide his order dated 11.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act by making the following addition(s)/disallowance

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay of 01 day. 4. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction of buildings which is evident from para 4 of the assessment order. Further, it is noted from the assessment order that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

36(1)(iii) as well. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the remand by the tribunal to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the investments were 14 Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board [A] made out of the funds of the assessee or from borrowed funds, is not warranted as the Assessing Officer for the Assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) as the contribution has been deposited with the respective authority after the due date as provided under the respective law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw the ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that such action of the DCIT does not fall within theambit

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) of the employees’ contribution towards PF Rs. 6,43,910/- though the same were paid before the due date for filing of return. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal, if required.” 2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) of the employees’ contribution towards PF Rs. 6,43,910/- though the same were paid before the due date for filing of return. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal, if required.” 2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024 for ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming tax of appellant at Rs. 2,73,95,728/as against refund of Rs. 29,71,648/- merely due to delay

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

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

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

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