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

SAYYAD RAFIQ ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

condone the impugned delay in all these cases. These five appeals are taken up for hearing on merits therefore. 3. Next comes assessees’ identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their interest income(s); involving varying sum(s), received u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition

SAYYAD ATIK ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

condone the impugned delay in all these cases. These five appeals are taken up for hearing on merits therefore. 3. Next comes assessees’ identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their interest income(s); involving varying sum(s), received u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition

SAYYAD MAKSOOD ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

condone the impugned delay in all these cases. These five appeals are taken up for hearing on merits therefore. 3. Next comes assessees’ identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their interest income(s); involving varying sum(s), received u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition

SAYYAD HAKEEM ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

condone the impugned delay in all these cases. These five appeals are taken up for hearing on merits therefore. 3. Next comes assessees’ identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their interest income(s); involving varying sum(s), received u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition

SAYYAD MATIN ALLI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

condone the impugned delay in all these cases. These five appeals are taken up for hearing on merits therefore. 3. Next comes assessees’ identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their interest income(s); involving varying sum(s), received u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition

NASHIK DISTRICT PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

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

viii) Provisions relating to exemption and deduction need to be strictly construed and no liberal interpretation on intendment can be inferred in such provisions. An interest income not allowed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) cannot be allowed u/s 80P(2)(d) just because the investments have been shifted from a scheduled bank to a co-operative bank. When done

SUJATABAI SHESHERAO BANSODE,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 4, LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

condoned. Further, the assessment was also completed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147. The addition of interest on compensation or enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.5,13,013/- is fully confirmed u/s 56(2)(viii).” 5. From perusal of the above order, we find that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of delay alone but at the same time

SHIVKANT NAGAPPA LASUNE,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICEER, WARD -3,, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.285/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shivkant Nagappa Lasune, Mahadeo Galli, Ahmedpur, Latur – 413 515 .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Adupl0156D बनाम / V/S.

56(2)(viii) r.w.s 57 (iv) 2 A.Y. : 2013-14 Shivkant Nagappa Lasune, , r.w.s. 145 (B)(1) interest income addition of Rs.25,16,539/- at rate of 50% of the total interest amount received to the tune of Rs.50,33,078/-, made in the course of assessment 28.11.2016 as upheld in the CIT(A) order. 3. Mr. Kulkarni vehemently argued

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

delay in filing of the CO is condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private company, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. It filed its return of income on 23.12.2011 declaring total loss of Rs.26,873/-. The assessment was completed

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

viii) Wherever, the AO found the provisions of section 269SS/269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D/271E should be submitted. (ix) Wherever necessary, the AO shall forward 3rd party information to the AO of such party. (x) That the orders along with the demand notice and penalty notices may be served on the assessee before

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

viii) Wherever, the AO found the provisions of section 269SS/269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D/271E should be submitted. (ix) Wherever necessary, the AO shall forward 3rd party information to the AO of such party. (x) That the orders along with the demand notice and penalty notices may be served on the assessee before