INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

57,394/- and claimed the TDS credit of Rs.4,02,541/- thereby claiming a refund of Rs.4,02,541/-. The return was revised on 06.03.2020 claiming income tax refund of Rs.2541/- and carry forward loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/-. However, the CPC did not allow the claim of carry forward 2 business loss of Rs.3

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No.29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” In view of the above decision

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No.29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” In view of the above decision

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

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

PRAVIN SHRIRAM TAPARE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO 1(5) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

57,560/-. Thereafter, Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings by issue of notice u/s. 271D, dated 08/02/2024 on the ground that assessee has contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting and depositing cash in his bank account. According to Ld.AO, assessee accepted deposit of ₹ 15,39,000/- and he therefore imposed penalty of ₹ 15,39,000/- u/s. 271D

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

section 80P(2) of Rs.1,25,13,425 in respect of interest earned on FDs with coop banks and the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing and confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by Assessee Society u/s 80P is respect of interest earned from coop banks despite compliance with relevant provisions

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

section 80P(2) of Rs.1,25,13,425 in respect of interest earned on FDs with coop banks and the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing and confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by Assessee Society u/s 80P is respect of interest earned from coop banks despite compliance with relevant provisions

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

section 80P(2) of Rs.1,25,13,425 in respect of interest earned on FDs with coop banks and the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing and confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by Assessee Society u/s 80P is respect of interest earned from coop banks despite compliance with relevant provisions

ASMITA AMOL PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

section 147 of the Act after taking approval of the competent authority. Since the assessee did not comply to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.03.2023, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,57

BT KADLAG CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 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 Bt Kadlag Construction Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle – 1, Nashik Shop No.2, Mohit Apartment, Vs. Vir Sawarkar Nagar Jain Road, Nashik – 422191 Pan: Aaccb0833B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali Department By : Shri Mukul Kulkarni (Virtually) Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-04-2026

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 9. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a civil contractor and filed its return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,40,09,890/-. The 5 case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ under CASS. Accordingly, notice

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

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case