ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

84,97,504/- made by the Assessing Officer, ITA No.1242/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

84,97,504/- made by the Assessing Officer, ITA No.1242/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

84,97,504/- made by the Assessing Officer, ITA No.1242/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

section 115JB of the ITA, 1961. Appellant contends that the correct book profit u/s 115JB amounts to Rs.25,84,052 and not Rs.42,55,991 as computed by the learned AO. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

section 115JB of the ITA, 1961. Appellant contends that the correct book profit u/s 115JB amounts to Rs.25,84,052 and not Rs.42,55,991 as computed by the learned AO. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay

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

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condoned by CBDT. 10.1 The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Aprameyha Engineering Ltd., Vs. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 740 has held as under : “8.1 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 held that provision of section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TASTY BITES EATABLES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Corporate Tax Grounds: Ground 5 -Disallowance of provision of Rs. 10,00,000/- and bad debts written off of' Rs. 10,14,691 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in disallowing: 5.1 A provision

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Corporate Tax Grounds: Ground 5 -Disallowance of provision of Rs. 10,00,000/- and bad debts written off of' Rs. 10,14,691 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in disallowing: 5.1 A provision

G N ADGAONKAR JWELES,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

84,174, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Excess levy of interest under section 234C of the Act 11. In the return of income filed for captioned assessment year, the Appellant had paid Interest under section 243C of the Act amounting Rs. 6,02,585. 12. However, in the intimation, the learned ADIT-CPC has erroneously levied Interest under section 234C

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

84,174, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Excess levy of interest under section 234C of the Act 11. In the return of income filed for captioned assessment year, the Appellant had paid Interest under section 243C of the Act amounting Rs. 6,02,585. 12. However, in the intimation, the learned ADIT-CPC has erroneously levied Interest under section 234C