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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. SPICER INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

2. This appeal was filed with a delay of 177 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. After hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 177 days are condoned. 3. The Revenue

VAIDYANATH KEDESHWAR SAKHAR UDYOG,,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SHREE SHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.317/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shree Shankar Sahakari Sakhar The Asst.Cit, Circle-1, Karkhan Ltd., Vs Solapur. Sadashivnagar, Tal-Malshiras, Dist.Solapur – 413111. Pan: Aaaas 3735 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prasanna Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune For The A.Y. 2013-14 Dated 02.01.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[In Short “The Act”]. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: (A) Disallowance Out Of Sugarcane Purchases: 1. From 2011 To 2016 Appellant Suffered Cash Losses Of Rs 87.58 Crores Eroding Its Net Worth Many Times Over; Farmers Were Not Paid Their Frp For Cane Supplied In 2014-15 & 2015-16; Sugar Factory Could Start Or Operate In 2016-17; Workers Were Not Paid Salaries For 27 Months & Stopped Attending Office; State Govt, Appointed An Administrator On 7/12/2016 Whose Office Was Located At Solapur Over 100 Kms From Appellant’S Factory; And

delay is condoned. 5. The only issue involving in this case is that assessee has paid sugar cane price of Rs.2062 per metric ton for season 2011-12 and Rs.2279 for season 2012-13, whereas the fair and remunerative price notified by the Government for the said period was Rs.1618.30 per metric ton and Rs.2022.20 per metric ton, respectively. Therefore

VINITA DEEPAK AHUJA,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 723/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019 Vinita Deepak Ahuja 1657-58, Lohiya Compound, Gandhi Nagar, Kolhapur. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Alnps6479B बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 10/12/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arisen From An Order Of Intimation Dt. 29/04/2019 U/S 143(1) From The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2018-19. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. The grounds raised for adjudication are; 1. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal even through thee was reasonable cause in delayed filing of appeal. 2

BHIMA SSK LTD,DAUND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Madhukarnagar, Patas , Tal.-Daund, Dist – Pune - 412219 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaatb1781B

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 4. The factual position is no different qua the latter substantive issue of assessee’s sale of sugar

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of construction. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,60,670/-. The return

SAHAKAR SHIROMANI VASANTRAO KALE SSK LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5),, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

2 ITA No.519/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 181 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeal is engaged in the business of manufacturing of while crystal sugar, molasses and baggasse as by- products, distillery and dealer in petroleum products. The issues

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 10 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeals is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of white sugar. The issues raised in this appeals are : i. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. ii. Addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the canegrowers/Farmers by the assessee. iii. Excess cane

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 10 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeals is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of white sugar. The issues raised in this appeals are : i. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. ii. Addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the canegrowers/Farmers by the assessee. iii. Excess cane

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 10 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeals is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of white sugar. The issues raised in this appeals are : i. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. ii. Addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the canegrowers/Farmers by the assessee. iii. Excess cane

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 Dana India Private Limited A. TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION IN `MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES’ 3. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the transfer pricing addition of Rs.22,60,76,000/- made by the AO in the ‘Manufacturing activities’. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

SHREE SANTOSHIMATA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSTHA,PEN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2019/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Santoshimata Majoor Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Sahakari Sanstha, 203, Gr. Floor, Sonkhar, Pen, Raigad- 402107. Pan : Avhpm2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil R. Talreja Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of This Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in collective disposal of labour of its members and has furnished its return of income on 21.09.2015 after claiming deduction of Rs.2,28,232/- u/s 80P(2

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

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

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

delay in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in business of construction of commercial and residential buildings. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income Rs.1,60,62,150/-. The Assessing Officer completed