SMT. MANGLA RAMNIWAS MANDHANI ABMM AWAS YOJNA FOUNDATION,JALNA vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION ), EXEMPTION

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.236/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal)

condone delay in filing reference applications under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. In Comm, of Agrl. I.T. vs. Thalayar Rubber Industries, 131 ITR 162 a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that Section 69

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal, an empathetic humane view of the matter ought to have been adopted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits further erred in not appreciating and considering all the issues emanating from the order of the AO passed under section 147 read with section 144B. It is prayed

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal, an empathetic humane view of the matter ought to have been adopted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits further erred in not appreciating and considering all the issues emanating from the order of the AO passed under section 147 read with section 144B. It is prayed

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,85,000/-by invoking provisions of section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961.on the basis of declaration

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

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

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 2 ITA No.2802/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a Public Trust constituted under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 since 24.01.1968. The assessee trust is not registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The assessee is engaged solely

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, ABCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(23C)(v) under which the trust has placed its claim of exemption. He, therefore, rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(v). He further noted that the assessee had filed form 10BB on 30/01/2017. It had also filed application for condonation of delay with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 which was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, APCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(23C)(v) under which the trust has placed its claim of exemption. He, therefore, rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(v). He further noted that the assessee had filed form 10BB on 30/01/2017. It had also filed application for condonation of delay with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 which was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide

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

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

condoned the delay and thereby rejected the appeal. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant's appeal and confirming the action of the AO of making addition of Rs.1,74,61,831/- under various sections which are tabulated below without providing sufficient and proper opportunity to the appellant 2 ITA No.93/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 and without verifying

APPASO SAMPATRAO MANE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, despite the\nappellant being non resident and explained sufficient cause for the delay by way\nof an affidavit.\n1.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant, an NRI\nresiding in the USA since 2014, did not access his registered email provided to\nPAN Database, after

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

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

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income u/s 139 of the Act. As per information available on record the assessee has made certain financial transactions, the details of which

WIRTGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Wirtgen India Private Limited Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru Gate No.301, 302, Bhandagaon Khor Vs. Road, Taluka Daund, Dist. Pune – 412214 Pan: Aaacw2816R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Prakash L Pathade, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-07-2025 O R D E R

69,969/- on account of delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. Since the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 622 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on account of delay. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that