ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

delay be condoned, the Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

delay be condoned, the Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence led by assessee before us, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 5. Coming to ITA No. 3351/Mum/2015 regarding levy of penalty

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence led by assessee before us, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 5. Coming to ITA No. 3351/Mum/2015 regarding levy of penalty

AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

condonation of delay. In the affidavit assessee has submitted as under: - “(1) It is evident from the order of assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that there were two addition made in the course of assessment u/s.143(3) on account of drawings Rs 1,90,000 and on account of rent received Rs.3

FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

penalty matter for the year under consideration, the year under consideration, has condoned the dela has condoned the delay of 101 days

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

condoned the delay in case of two penalty appeals, whereas, herefused to condone the delay in these two appeals as well

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions of law are reproduced below for ready reference:\n“Form of appeal and limitation.\n249. (1) ...\n(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date,\nthat

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,BHULABHAI DESAI vs. CIT(APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions of law are reproduced below for ready reference:\n“Form of appeal and limitation.\n249. (1) ...\n(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date,\nthat

SARNATH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions of law are reproduced below for ready reference:\n\n“Form of appeal and limitation.\n249. (1) ...\n(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date,\nthat

UTTAR BAHRTIIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. 2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A materially erred in law by calculating the delay as 1,296 days. The Assessment Order was passed on 08.02.2021, and the normal limitation period expired in March 2021, ITA No.7651/MUM/2025/AY 2018-19 & ITA No.7652/M/2025/AY 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya

UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. 2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A materially erred in law by calculating the delay as 1,296 days. The Assessment Order was passed on 08.02.2021, and the normal limitation period expired in March 2021, ITA No.7651/MUM/2025/AY 2018-19 & ITA No.7652/M/2025/AY 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DESAI ROAD vs. CIT (APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay\n3.1 As per provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the Act, appeal against an\nintimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be presented within 30\ndays of the service of connected demand notice. Section 249(3) provides for\ncondonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied that appellant\nhad sufficient cause

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

delay in doing so is to\nbe condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant\nhad sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This\nposition emanates from the plain reading of the Section 249\nwhich stipulates thus:\n"..249\n(2) the appeal shall be presented within thirty days of\n(a) Where the appeal is date

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condonation of delay in filing an\nappeal\n(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law the Id. CIT(A)\nought to have considered that section 249(2) of The Income Tax Act,\n1961, mentions that the appeal may be admitted if there is a 'sufficient\ncause' in delay in filing an appeal and the lockdown

JORD ENGINEERS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Amit Shukla ()

penalty proceedings. The assessee is challenging the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-17, Mumbai in both the proceedings. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by Ld CIT(A) in quantum assessment proceedings. The assessee is challenging the decision of Ld CIT(A) in refusing to condone the delay

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.26,79,29,490/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in spite of\nfurnishing complete and accurate particulars and not concealing any\nincome in whatsoever manner.\nWe beg to pray before your honour to kindly consider our humble\nsubmission and decide the matter considering the merit in the case as\nsubmitted as above.\nYour Appellant craves leave