MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order also.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) in the consolidated order dated 10.10.2023 passed the order i.e. in\nrespect of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 and u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act\nand dismissed both the appeals.\n8.\nAggrieved with such order

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order also.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) in the consolidated order dated 10.10.2023 passed the order i.e. in\nrespect of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 and u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act\nand dismissed both the appeals.\n8.\nAggrieved with such order

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Medical Association V Dcit, Pune Branch, S Exemption Circle, Pune. 992, Dr.Nitu Mandke, Ima House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aaati2653M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 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], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.05.2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 22.05.2021 for A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.764/PUN/2025 [A] “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 567 days in filing the appeal and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that

KALPANA PRAKASH KALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE

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

condoning the delay when there was sufficient cause beyond the control of the assessee. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned reassessment proceedings are valid in law which are initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in contravention of the provisions of Section 151A. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances

M/S VINCHURKAR DIAGNOSTICS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

45,600/- 26-12-2013 18-01-2021 19-01 2021 2552 days 13/10012312 Q2 2 ITA 701 to 703/PUN/2021 Vinchurkar Diagnostics A.Y. 2013-14 (B) I.T.A. No. 702/PUN/2021 – Q3/26Q Appeal FY and Form Demand Date of order Date of receipt Date of filing Delay in No. & quarter raised u/s u/s 200A of intimation of appeal filing 200A/234E

M/S VINCHURKAR DIAGNOSTICS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

45,600/- 26-12-2013 18-01-2021 19-01 2021 2552 days 13/10012312 Q2 2 ITA 701 to 703/PUN/2021 Vinchurkar Diagnostics A.Y. 2013-14 (B) I.T.A. No. 702/PUN/2021 – Q3/26Q Appeal FY and Form Demand Date of order Date of receipt Date of filing Delay in No. & quarter raised u/s u/s 200A of intimation of appeal filing 200A/234E

M/S VINCHURKAR DIAGNOSTICS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

45,600/- 26-12-2013 18-01-2021 19-01 2021 2552 days 13/10012312 Q2 2 ITA 701 to 703/PUN/2021 Vinchurkar Diagnostics A.Y. 2013-14 (B) I.T.A. No. 702/PUN/2021 – Q3/26Q Appeal FY and Form Demand Date of order Date of receipt Date of filing Delay in No. & quarter raised u/s u/s 200A of intimation of appeal filing 200A/234E

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

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

45,000/- on account of undisclosed capital gain and (iii) Rs.75,896/- on account of interest income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 755 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the said delay and dismissed

SURESH DATTATRAY GURAV,BAVDHAN PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2172/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suresh Dattatray Gurav, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.5, Mangesh Garden, S Ward-2(3), Nashik. Bavdhan Khurd, Mulshi, Pune – 411021. Pan: Aaypg3217D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshal Nasikkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Add.Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 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(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16; dated 23.11.2021. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay made by the appellant in the appropriate

MANJU MADHUSUDAN DHOOT, L/H OF LATE MADHUSUDAN DHOOT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the instant appeals and proceed for adjudication on merits. 6. I first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No.1919/PUN/2024 read as under: “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding