MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE JUNIOR COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

9. Section 3 of the Limitation Act in no uncertain terms lays down that no suit, appeal or application instituted, preferred or made after the period prescribed shall be entertained rather dismissed even though limitation has not been set up as a defence subject to the exceptions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act. 10. Section

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

9. Section 3 of the Limitation Act in no uncertain terms lays down that no suit, appeal or application instituted, preferred or made after the period prescribed shall be entertained rather dismissed even though limitation has not been set up as a defence subject to the exceptions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act. 10. Section

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

VII. The principle of limitation serves to uphold the finality of proceedings, ensuring judicial discipline and administrative efficiency. Condoning the delay without reasonable justification would dilute the sanctity of these timelines and encourage non- compliance. VIII. Allowing condonation of such a substantial delay without valid justification would set a precedent detrimental to the efficiency of the tax administration

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 on 16.10.2010 2 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.7,12,450/-. Subsequently, he revised his return by filing revised return

NAVCHAITANYA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD. ATIT,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant society is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.884/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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 249(3) permit ld.CIT(A) to admit delayed appeal if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for delay. 7) In these facts, lets understand the principles explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court for condonation of delay. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee

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 249(3) permit ld.CIT(A) to admit delayed appeal if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for delay. 7) In these facts, lets understand the principles explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court for condonation of delay. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee

PRASANNA SHRIKANT PATANKAR,SATARA vs. ITO WD NO - 04, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

vii. OAOAM Muthiah Chettiar Vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad); viii. Laxmi Traders Vs. CIT, 168 ITR 253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors. in ITA No. 01/PUN/2023 dated 23.01.2023. 2.2 The Ld. DR, however, opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI ,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

vii. OAOAM Muthiah Chettiar Vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad); viii. Laxmi Traders Vs. CIT, 168 ITR 253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors. in ITA No. 01/PUN/2023 dated 23.01.2023. 2.2 The Ld. DR, however, opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there

S T CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 S T Co-Operative Credit V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Swargate S T Depo, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Swargate Bus Stand, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabas6856L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.08.2024 For A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause As Explained In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed Before Cit(A) & Therefore, The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & The Appeal Should Have Been Adjudicated On Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Deduction U/S 80P Was Allowable In Respect Of Interest Earned From Deposits Made By Cooperative Banks As Consistently Held By Honorable

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by refusing to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the said delay was due to reasonable cause as explained in the application for condonation of delay filed before CIT(A) and therefore, the said delay ought to have been condoned

VTP FOODS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP and engaged in agricultural activities. It filed its return of income on 20.10.2017 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the norms of CASS. Accordingly statutory notices

SUYASH SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suyash Solutions Pvt. Ltd., V The Dy.Cit, S.No.145, Pune Saswad Road, S. Circle-5, Pune. Opp,.Navalakha Godown, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Maharashtra. Pan: Aajcs7144M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mihir C Naniwadekar & Shri B.D.Bhide – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Gurugram Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2010-11, Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(1) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 23.02.2011. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2010-11, dated 22.01.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.143(1) of the I.T.Act, dated 23.02.2011. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : ITA No.576/PUN/2025 [A] “Being aggrieved by an order passed by the ld.CIT(A)-NFAC (hereinafter referred for short as the „ld.CIT(A)‟) U/sec.250 dated 22.01.2025, your appellant submits following

MALEGAON MAHANAGAR PALIKA KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1 MALEGAON, MALEGAON, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in denying the claim of deduction of Rs.10,49,832 u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of interest earned by the assessee society from its deposits with other co-operative societies that is part of the regular business operations of the assessee