KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

72,116/- vide his order dated 15.09.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 223 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of the said delay but without any affidavit in support thereof. The assessee stated in Form 35 that the affidavit for condonation will be submitted

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 PANDHARPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE PANDHARPUR vs. YASHODA MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA , MANGALWEDHA DISTRICT SOLAPUR

delay of 72 days, therefore, the Ld. A.R took\nus through the reasons leading to the same. It was submitted by\nthe Ld. A.R that the then counsel of the assessee society who\nwas looking after its tax matters, viz. Shr. Ravikiran Pandurang\nTodkar, Chartered Accountant was taken unwell due to kidney\nfailure and had undergone kidney transplant, therefore

EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD ,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, EXEMTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE ,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

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

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

PSR SUSTAINABILITY FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

72 days respectively in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Appellant has filed application(s) for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. “4. Reason for Delay in Filing the Appeal: 4.1. Initial Guidance and Reapplication Attempt: Upon receipt of the impugned rejection order dated 09/12/2024, the trustees of the Appellant

PSR SUSTAINABILITY FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

72 days respectively in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Appellant has filed application(s) for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. “4. Reason for Delay in Filing the Appeal: 4.1. Initial Guidance and Reapplication Attempt: Upon receipt of the impugned rejection order dated 09/12/2024, the trustees of the Appellant

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay of 01 day. 4. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction of buildings which is evident from para 4 of the assessment order. Further, it is noted from the assessment order that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration

MAHESH RAMKISAN RATHI,,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - II,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is an individual stated to be partner in M/s. Rathi Estates which is engaged in the business of dealing in real estate. Assessee electronically filed its return of income

DEEPALI DILIP DHUMALE,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepali Dilip Dhumale, V The Income Tax Officer, 312 1, Sanchayani Bhavann S Kudal. Samor, Bazarpeth Kankavali, Sindhudurg – 416602. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeypd8193H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Raichandani –Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri P R Mane – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned

section 250 of the Income tax act 1961 dated 25.10.2023 and assessing the total income of Rs. 6,72,31,213 /- and thereby raising tax demand of Rs. 8,81,35,469/-. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in disallowing the condonation of delay

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and take up the Cross objections for disposal on merits. A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. The first legal issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is as under: “Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act. 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and take up the Cross objections for disposal on merits. A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. The first legal issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is as under: “Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act. 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

MANJU MADHUSUDAN DHOOT L/H OF LATE MADHUSUDAN DHOOT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the instant appeals and proceed for adjudication on merits. 6. I first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No.1919/PUN/2024 read as under: “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding