“condonation of delay”

Asian Business Connections Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasian Business Connections Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 5(3), Fm-18 Mansarovar Complex No. 7 Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal Mumbai-400020 Madhya Pradesh - 462016

Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”). 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted the application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and explained that the filling was delayed and relied on the decision ... Ld.DR has no specific objections. Further we are satisfied with the reasonable cause explained for delay in filling the appeal and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. (A) The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts

Vile Parle Mahila Sangh, Mumbai-400057 vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai-400026

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevile Parle Mahila Sangh V. Cit (Exemptions) Mangalayatan, Paranjpe B Scheme Room No. 601, 6Th Floor Road No. 1, Vile Parle (E) Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road Mumbai - 400057 Dr. Gopal Rao Deshmukh Marg Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400026 Pan: Aaatv2407Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Achal Sharma

your office. A copy of order u/s.119(2)(6) dated 12.09.2019 is attached for ease of reference. 3. A fresh application for condonation of delay was made on 9th April, 2021 after the power of condonation was restored back section 119(2)(6) by the CBDT. The delay in filing

Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-26, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Cit (A)-26 Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian R.No.331, 3Rd Floor, 406, Vardhaman Market Tower No.6 Sector 17, Vashi, Vashi Station Complex Vs. Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzps4849K Assessee By : Shri Nm Porwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

assessee is filed late causing delay of 250 days. Assessee has submitted an application of Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian; A.Y. 07-08 condonation of delay in the form of affidavit of accountant as well as of assessee. According to the affidavit of accountant, it was stated that the accountant received ... appeal and that delay deserves to be condoned. Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian; A.Y. 07-08 04. The learned Departmental Representative opposed the application of condonation of delay. 05. We have carefully considered the application for condonation of delay. The fact shows that the order of the learned CIT(A) was received

Camoron Finance & Investments, Mumbai-400057 vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Mum, Mumbai-400051

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Camoron Finance & Vs. The Acit, Circle 17(1) Investments, 139-140B, Room No. 117, 1 St Floor, Crossing Of Sahar Road Kautilya Bhavan & Western Express Bandra Kurla Complex, Highway, Ville Parle (E), Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400057 Mumbai - 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafc5210A Appellant .. Respondent

assessee by rejecting its request for condonaton of 124 days in filing the appeal. In this regard, we have gone through affidavit regarding condonation of delay filed by the assessee wherein it is categorically mentioned that the assessee was in receipt of notice dated 17.03.2019 from the Deputy Commissioner

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence

Late Shri Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence

Late Shri Jayeesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

outset, we noticed that the present cross objection is delayed by 22 days. In this regard, assessee has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. In the said application, it is submitted that there were certain issues related to the jurisdiction and to verify the same certain information ... same. The learned DR did not raise any serious objection and therefore, in view of the submissions made in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause for not filing the present cross objection within the limitation period. Accordingly, we condone