ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

151 taxmann.com 434 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that when the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings pursuant to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, therefore, provisions of section 124(3)(a) precludes the assessee from

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

disallowance of deduction of Rs 96,408/- claimed under section 80C by Ld. NaFAC without appreciating the valid submission filed by the Appellant and hence, the same is bad in law and thus, the impugned addition may please be deleted. OTHER GROUNDS: 17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

151 of the Act.” 13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para 4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

151 of the Act.” 13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para 4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

151 of the Act.” 13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para 4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act is concerned, he allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: “The appellant is of the view that ignoring the request for cross examination and failure to supply the materials/statements etc, relied upon by the AO during the entire assessment proceedings, is not permissible under

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

151 of\nthe Act.\n13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para\n4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation\nreceived during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine\ntherefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as\nthe assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the\nnature

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

151 of\nthe Act.\"\n13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para\n4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation\nreceived during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine\ntherefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as\nthe assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the\nnature

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

151 of\nthe Act.\"\n13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para\n4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation\nreceived during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine\n18\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\ntherefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as\nthe assessee

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

151] (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures in the case of CIT (Central) Kolkata vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in [87 ITR 349], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

section 151(2) has extended time\ntill 31 March 2021 to grant approval;\nf. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand\nreassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021\nand 30 June 2021;\ng. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMAPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 151 days in filing

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 151 days in filing

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

disallowance. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a benevolent circular to all the authorities working under the Act that such receipt of additional compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as the it was not interest but additional compensation and also was exempt

M/S. ARTHBHARTI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1848/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Latur. Adarsh Colony, Old Ausa Road, Latur – 413512. Pan: Aabaa2265P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2018-19Dated 24.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Without Prejudice To Other Grounds & On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings So Completed Are Invalid Since The Addition Is Made On An Issue Different Than That For Which Case Was Re-Opened. Since, The Issue Of Re-Opening Did Not Survive The Assessment Proceedings Becomes Void-Ab-Initio. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated & Completed Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

151 (ii) of the Act is not taken. Accordingly, the Assessment Proceedings so initiated be kindly annulled and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. Without prejudice to other grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since