KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

condoning the delay when there was sufficient cause. 2. The ld AO erred in law and on fact in making addition of Rs 19,77,900/- as salary income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 4. Without touching grounds & merits of the case, we have heard

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

77,723/-. 3. Since there was a delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC relying on various decisions dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

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

77,723/-. 3. Since there was a delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC relying on various decisions dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

GANGAGIRI MAHARAJ BETSARALA MAHILA NAGARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 455 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information about cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period, assessee was served with notice u/s.142

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

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

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

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

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. LTD MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD), ,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

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

77,650/- by making the disallowance of Rs.12,69,969/- 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

KUMAR BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

77,157/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.6,71,49,739/- after making the following additions :- (i) Addition on account of unsecured

ANIL HANUMANT CHOUDHARI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3) PUNE, PUNE

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

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

condoned the delay in submitting ITR-V and both the returns are valid returns. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the final appeal order without taking into consideration the point of dispute (i.e. difference between ready reckoner value of the property and stamp duty paid on the apparent consideration) or referring the case back to the file

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MUKUND MANOHAR SANGAMNERKAR, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1092/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Mukund Manohar Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1092/Pun/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukund Manohar Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Abhay A. Avchat Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

section 68 gets invoked? 2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act (inadvertently mentioned as u/s 68 in assessment order) on account of the FD/investments not recorded in the books of account, without considering the fact