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

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 of Rs.39

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, ABCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(23C)(v) under which the trust has placed its claim of exemption. He, therefore, rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(v). He further noted that the assessee had filed form 10BB on 30/01/2017. It had also filed application for condonation of delay with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 which was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, APCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(23C)(v) under which the trust has placed its claim of exemption. He, therefore, rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(v). He further noted that the assessee had filed form 10BB on 30/01/2017. It had also filed application for condonation of delay with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 which was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and\nadmit the same for adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\n“1.\nThe Ld AO relied on the information of AIR regarding cash deposit of\nRs.11,00,000/- in ShyamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd. Mumbai, but has\nno tangible reliable material of the same

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

97 of the paper book refers). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, did not find the reasons cited therein to be reasonable/sufficient to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC should have condoned the delay considering that the delay was not inordinate

SHREE AMBIKA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1329/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Ambika Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakri Patsanstha S Ward-10(1), Pune. Maryadit, Khodad, Junnar, Pune – 410504. Pan: Aadas2545Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2021-22 Dated 08.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 Registry Informed That There Is A Delay 35 Days. We Have Carefully Gone Through The Affidavit & Notice That On Account Of

condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the delay was due to genuine hardship faced by the appellant. 3. The Learned IT authorities erred in law and on facts in issuance of intimation order u/s 143(1) of ITA, 1961 without adhering to the requisite procedures of issuance of proposed adjustment

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

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

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass immediately, even though the consideration

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

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

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass immediately, even though the consideration

MUSLIM FOUNDATION FOR RENAISSANCE KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR vs. JURISDICTIONAL AO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on account of a delay in filing Form 10B for the year under consideration, without appreciating that the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts

JANKALYAN FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.310/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na Jankalyan Foundation Cit Exemption, Pune 14/2 Flat No. B/9 Ganesh Heights, Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Dapodi, Pune-411012 Maharashtra Pan-Aaiaj1981E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: None Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12-08-2025

section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 97 days in filing of the present appeal. Application for condonation

CHANDRAPRABHU GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has earned aggregate interest of Rs.14,44,054/- on FDRs maintained with nationalized banks private sector banks, (the details of interest are listed at para 6.4 of the assessment order). AO was of the view that the interest income

CHANDRAPRABHU GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANTHA MARYADIT,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has earned aggregate interest of Rs.14,44,054/- on FDRs maintained with nationalized banks private sector banks, (the details of interest are listed at para 6.4 of the assessment order). AO was of the view that the interest income