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

85% of its income for charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016

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

85% of its income for charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016

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

85% of its income for charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016

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

85% of its income for charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016

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

85% of its income for charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016

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

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

BIBLE FELLOWSHIP CENTRE WAGHOLI,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form no. 10 and Form No. 9A for AY 2016-17 Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter Act) the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust or institution in respect of income derived from property

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

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

section 147 of the Act after taking approval of the competent authority. Since the assessee did not comply to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.03.2023, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,57,85

SHRI NITIN NANDLAL SHRISHRIMAL,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DHULE, CIRCLE, DHULE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Nandlal Vs. Acit, Dhule Circle, Shrishrimal, Dhule. 1269, Agra Road, Near Gandhi Statute, Dhule- 424001. Pan : Azvps8225M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Dixit Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)Pune - 11, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 15 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Sr. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT-(A) erred in holding that the business income of Rs.14,80,080 offered by the assessee in the course of the survey proceedings u/s 133A was assessable to tax as unexplained income taxable

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

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

85,00,000/-. (ii) Addition on account of interest on the said unsecured loan of Rs.37,55,932/-. (iii) Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of Rs.1,56,31,290/-. (iv) Disallowance on commission payment of Rs.57,30,908/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned

LIONS NAB COMMUNITY EYECARE CENTRE, MIRAJ,SANGLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lions Nab Community Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Eyecare Centre, Plot No.P-39, Midc, Miraj, Sangli- 416410. Pan : Aabfl4373L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated In M.A. No.151/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.257/Pun/2022 Dated 06.01.2023 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue De Novo. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Condonation Application Duly

section 143(1) of the IT Act on 27.01.2012 and raised a demand of Rs.18,39,689/-. 5. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condoned the delay of 7 and half year in filing of appeal, however dismissed the appeal after discussing/deciding the merits of the case by observing as under

SHARAD PANDURANG KARDILE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2009/Pun/2024 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

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

condonation of delay for filing of appeal by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) without considering the facts of the case is not justified and the same leads to injustice in the case of the appellant. 1.5 The appellant, therefore, prays that the case of the appellant may please be decided on merits of the case or the case be restored before

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

condonation of delay for filing of appeal by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) without considering the facts of the case is not justified and the same leads to injustice in the case of the appellant. 1.5 The appellant, therefore, prays that the case of the appellant may please be decided on merits of the case or the case be restored before

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT erred in law and on facts in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial

PUNE CANTONMENT BOARD KAMGAR CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19

85,180/-, as income from other sources by rejecting appellants contention that said interest income is integral part of business activity and your appellant prays for cancellation of Assessing officer's action 4. Without prejudice to above ground on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer in not allowing the deduction