“condonation of delay”

M/S Ronit Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Ronit Mercantile Private Ito, Ward 13(3)(2), Limited Aaykar Bhavan A-101, Humgra Park Pathanwadi Vs. Road, Malad (East), Opp Masid Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 097 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr9382C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024

Further, the appeal filed before us is late by 58 days but an affidavit of the director of the company is filed for condonation of delay stating that the delay has occurred because of the illness of the advocate of the assessee. 06. The ld DR was heard on merits ... well as on condonation of delay in filing appeal. 07. On perusal of the affidavit, we find that by filing the appeal late, the assessee does not gain anything and the reasons shown in the affidavit are also not stated to be with other motive and therefore, we condone

Rajshri Pictures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

delay of 343 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit along with a petition for condonation of delay. The ld. AR with regard to condonation submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the order giving effect under section 143(3) r.w.s ... delay may be condoned considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay. 4. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient

Shree Krishna Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exm Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, an appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

filed against rectification order dated 26.09.2022. Hence, the same was not considered and the appeal was dismissed by considering there being no condonation of delay in filing the appeal was sought. 6) That the impugned order being contrary to law, evidence and facts of the case may kindly ... order i.e. probably up to 3^(3/10.2019 or so, therefore This is a delayed appeal and the appellant needs to file request for"Condonation of delay but in column no 14 of Form 35 where the appellant is required to furnish "Whether there is delay in filing appeal

Dhanvarsha Nagri Sahakari Patasantha Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

chairman of the Appellant/Co- operative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record along with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of delay. We are satisfied that the Appellant had sufficient cause for not fling the appeal in time before the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days

Mr. Naresh Topandas Aidasani, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi/ DCIT-27(2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

wherein the Page |1 ITA No. 105/Mum/2024 Naresh Topandas Aidasani; A.Y. 2012-13 appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed being barred as condonation of delay was not allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). . The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return ... challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) who by order dated 06.12.2023 i.e., the impugned order has dismissed the appeal while refusing to condone the delay and application for seeking condonation of delay was dismissed. It is against that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.02.2023, the assessee

Rahul Ashok Kamat, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Assessment year [A.Y.] 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the same. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has, apart from the submissions related to the merits, submitted that ... learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 199 days, despite bonafide cause of non receipt of any notice, which is clear from the affidavit of assessee and his friend’s wife Ms. Devarakonda Gowthami. 3. Learned DR has supported the impugned order. 4. We have heard