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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56,110/- was raised against the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this forum. During the appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56,110/- was raised against the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this forum. During the appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56,110/- was raised against the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this forum. During the appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56,110/- was raised against the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this forum. During the appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)\nerred in holding that interest earned by the assessee on its surplus\ninvestments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2) (d)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)\nerred in holding that interest earned by the assessee on its surplus\ninvestments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2) (d)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the provisions

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

condone the impugned delay. This main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. We now advert to the assessee’s pleadings of all these years to note that its former twin appeals IT(SS)A 06 & 07/Pun/2017 raise an identical issue of 2 IT(SS)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 ITA No. 609/Pun/09 Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala correctness

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

56 ITD 14 (Delhi Trib.) 3. Shakti Clearing Agency (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 127 Taxman 49 (Rajkot- Trib.) 4. J.K. Chaturvedi vs. Asstt. CIT [2004] 3 SOT 456 (Ahd. - Trib.) 5. Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2013] 37 Taxman.com 137/145 ITD 202 (Mum) 4.2.3 It is trite that the delay can be condoned only if there

SH PRAVINCHANDRA WALCHAND SHAH,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.296/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Pravinchandra Walchand The Pr.Cit, Nashik-1. Shah, Vs 19, Sumati Society, Sharanpur . Road, Shastri Nagar, Nashik – 422002. Pan: Acmps 2997L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Ar Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nashik-1’S Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031448193(1), In Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, and referred to 1st and 2nd proviso thereunder his case is that the corresponding addition could not exceed stamp duty value of the asset in any case under clause (ii) thereof. And that the authorities concerned may also adopt stamp duty value on the date of agreement provided that the considerations payment

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 56 of the Act. In the absence of\nany explanation offered by the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that the\nassessee in its return in Schedule-OS has claimed expenses /deduction\nu/s 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.6,69,44,047/-. However, the assessee\nhas failed to substantiate its claim of expenses with supporting\nevidence/documents. Moreover, the assessee

INDRAYANI SEVA SAMITI NYAS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

56(2) of the Act that was received by the assessee trust as a corpus fund towards the construction of hostel building for orphan girls. He failed to appreciate the facts, the detailed submissions as well as the law in this regard in its proper perspective. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay