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

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

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

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

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

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

MAYURI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.10,39,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) of the Income

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

delay of 177 days are condoned. 3. The Revenue raised as many as 6 grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the adjustment of Rs.14,71,41,219/- made by the AO/TPO on account of management services fees in the facts and circumstances of the case

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 :

40A (2) of the Act. The assessee i.e NLT had received services from TACL in respect of which payment had been made as per documentary evidence on record and thus, there was no warrant for disallowance paid to TACL by the assessee when the payment was adjudged on the principle of commercial expediency when viewed from the point of view

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

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

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

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

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 raised in this appeal are : i. Disallowance of Excess cane price. ii. Disallowance of sale of sugar at concessional rate

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

M/S. ORGANICA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

40A (3) of the income tax act. It is apparent from the audit objection filed before us at page number 30 of the paper book that the case of the assessee was selected for the scrutiny to verify only the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The issue before us is whether assessing officer has made