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

KISAN SEVA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,BUBNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2802/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17

Section 144 was neither willful nor deliberate but was due to the aforesaid genuine and unavoidable reasons. The delay in filing this appeal is of 180 days, calculated from 21.01.2019 to 20.07.2019.” 4.1 The above stated reasons for condoning the delay were not found to be satisfactory by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He therefore rejected the condonation request

OM J J SWA VISHWASHANTI DHAM NIRMAN SANSTHA,VERUL vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

section 12AA of\nthe Act and had duly applied the income towards its charitable\nobjectives.\nCapital Nature of Donations - Not Taxable:\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without\nprejudice to any other ground, the CPC has erred in not treating the\ndonations received towards the building fund and corpus as taxable\nincome, whereas such

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

PARAG KIRAN GUJRATHI,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which is arising out of intimation u/s. 143(1), dated 24/12/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee referring to the grounds of appeal fairly accepted that impugned order is 2 ITA.No.2335/PUN./2025 (Parag Kiran Gujrathi) an exparte

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

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

delay be condoned, and the Appeal should be taken up for hearing. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal mentioned herein above.” 7 Universal Reality 10. From the above grounds of appeal, it is manifest that the only grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT

NATIONAL WOMENS ORGANISATION,PUNE vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.819/Pun/2025 National Womens Organisation, Cit (Exemption), Pune B 16, Shanti Vihar, Bhavdan, Pune-411021 Vs. Pan : Aaatn4537H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shweta Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 Date Of 01-08-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2022 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 31.03.2022 In Form No. 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 847 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. He submitted that the delay is not intentional and is a bonafide one for the reasons beyond

RAVIKIRAN GOPALRAO ALAVANDI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2939/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits. However, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2 Ravikiran Gopalrao Alavandi 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, it be held that the ld.CIT