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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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

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

M/S SHIRODE AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.501/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 M/s. Shirode Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 3. Tersely stated, the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee is engaged in the business of sales and service of two wheelers and tractors. A return was filed declaring total income of Rs.30,48,700/-. During the course

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

M/S SARGAM RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

SIDDHESHWAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

condone the delay of 95 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of spare parts and engineering goods. The return of income for the assessment year

GTT COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 36(1)(va) and 43B as per Finance Act, 2021 are prospective in application i.e. w.e.f. April 1, 2021 (as per CBDT Memorandum Explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill 2021). 3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the case

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 36(1)(va) and 43B as per Finance Act, 2021 are prospective in application i.e. w.e.f. April 1, 2021 (as per CBDT Memorandum Explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill 2021). 3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the case

TOKAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,HINGOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), JALNA, JALNA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.571/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1, Jalna. Villag Kurunda, Taluka Basmath . District, Hingoli – 431512. Pan: Aaat6997Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anand Partani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2024

43B(d) of the Act. We see no reason to deal with the same at this stage once we have already adopted judicial consistency ITA No.571/PUN/2023 : A.Y.2018-19 Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., [A] in foregoing terms. This first and foremost substantive ground is accepted in assessee’s favour therefore. 4. The assessee second substantive ground claims interest deduction of Rs.38

SUPREME EQUIPMENTS P LTD,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No. 224/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 Supreme Equipments Private Limited B-19, Nice, Midc, Satpur, Nashik. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[For Short “Nfac”] Dt.12/03/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of An Order Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Dit, Cpc-Bengaluru [For Short “Cpc”] Dt. 06/07/2020, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2019-2020. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

delayed by 21 days and same is condoned in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in WP/3/2020, MA/665/2021 & MA/29/2022. In the absence of assessee, the ex-parte hearing was held, wherein the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] without controverting the facts that, the appellant company has duly deposited EPF and ESI before the due date for filing