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

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

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

MILIND CHHABULALSHINKAR,JALGAON vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Milind Chhabulal Shinkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Plot No.20, Kailasnagar, Jalgaon Bhadgaon Road, Chalisgaon, Jalgaon – 424 101 Maharashtra Pan : Avips5421L Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 378 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and no regular return of income under the provisions of section

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

378 as income in the hands of the appellant trust by denying the exemption u/s 11, without appreciating that even if the exemption u/s 11 is denied, the gross receipts cannot constitute income as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DDIT v. Petroleum Sports Promotion Board [362 ITR 235 (Delhi

M/S SEVEN STAR DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Seven Star Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Developers, S.No.14/1/2/3, Shop No.2, Shubham Residency, Dhayari, Pune-411041. Pan : Accfs1198P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandrakar Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2022 : आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-4 Pune’S Order Dated 26.02.2020 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ward-6(2),Pune/177/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That Instant Appeal Suffers From 378 Days Delay In Filing. I Find That The Cit(A) Has Passed His Lower

378 days delay in filing. I find that the CIT(A) has passed his lower 2 appellate order on 26.02.2020 which followed outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic during which the assessee filed the instant appeal on 22.11.2021. The Revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble apex court latest directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 438 ITR 296 (SC) read

MUKUNDA PANDIT CHAUGULE,PANDHURLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3194/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, V The Income Tax Officer, 471A, Shimpi Lane, Pandurli S Nashik. B.O., Pandhurli, Nashik – 422502 Pan: Atepc5427G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 26.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 20.04.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

delay is condoned. Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee filed paper book. Ld.AR pleaded only with respect to Ground No.3 which is a Legal Ground. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer &ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records

TRANSPERFECT SOLUTIONS I P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR -07, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appeal is time barred by 85 days. The ld. AR stated that the delay in filing the appeal was caused due to Covid pandemic situation prevailing in the country at the material time