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

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act has been used claiming it as for order u/s 144 of the Act, by the appellant to justify the delay in filing the instant appeal against order u/s 144 of the Act, which is passed on Page 4 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading

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

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act has been used claiming it as for order u/s 144 of the Act, by the appellant to justify the delay in filing the instant appeal against order u/s 144 of the Act, which is passed on Page 4 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

154 application, which was filed after gap of 2 years and the same has neither been pursued nor followed by seeking appropriate legal aid. It is pertinent to note that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted u/s.249(3) only if the appellant could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal

BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2153/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

condone the delay and appeal was dismissed on account of delay in filing appeal late by 40 days beyond the time prescribed u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act and also on the grounds that an alternative remedy by way of an rectification application u/s. 154

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

rectification application u/s 154. 10) I say that I was now in Sept 18 advised that I should have filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT way back in 2011. The new tax consultant advised, that I should now file appeal before Hon'ble ITAT along with petition of condonation of delay

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

rectification application u/s 154. 10) I say that I was now in Sept 18 advised that I should have filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT way back in 2011. The new tax consultant advised, that I should now file appeal before Hon'ble ITAT along with petition of condonation of delay

MONISH BIPIN SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DY.COM. OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, (JAO: CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Monish Bipin Shah Dy. Com. Of Income Tax, C-1002, Lodha Bellissimo, Cpc [Jao : Circle 27(2), N. M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai] Jacob Circle, Room No. 419, Mumbai- 400011. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Flat 22, Nirmala Mahal, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Bomenji Petit Road Breach Commercial Complex, Vashi, Candy, Navi Mumbai- 400703. Mumbai- 400036. Pan: Aglps5759F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay u/s 139 (5). Be that as it way the assessee, also, filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the rejection order dated 18/06/2018. 3. Assessee was issued notices by the Ld. CIT(A) on various instances in response to which submissions were furnished though not considered, the Ld. CIT(A) thereafter observed and held as under

MANECKJI RUSTOMJI PATEL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALURU, 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 Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Maneckji Rustomji Patel Trust, Income Tax Cpc, Bangaluru, 5, 2Nd Floor, Oval View, 150 M. Karve Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Ward Vs. Road, Churchgate 25(2)(1), Mumbai-400020. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East. Pan No. Aadtm 1078 R Appellant Respondent

154 of the Act was served on 03.05.2016. quantum of the addition of the demand raised cannot be a ground quantum of the addition of the demand raised cannot be quantum of the addition of the demand raised cannot be for condonation of the delay. for condonation of the delay. 3. We have heard rival submissions of the parties

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

Condonation of delay for filing departmental Appeal in the case of M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd. Formerly known as intelnet Global Service Pvt Ltd (PAN – AABCV25) (erstwhile PAN – AAACI7387P) for A.Y 2009- 10, ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 – reg. Kindly refer to the above, 2. In this connection, it is stated that the delay in filing appeal is attributed to the following

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

rectification u/s 154 was filed for 3 Assessment\nyear out of Appeal filed for 4 Assessment year, since an application against\n143(1) order was pending did not provide a ground to file an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) earlier further when an appeal was filed\nin response to the questionnaires issued

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

rectification u/s 154 was filed for 3 Assessment\nyears out of Appeal filed for 4 Assessment year, since an application against\n143(1) order was pending did not provide a ground to file an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) earlier further when an appeal was filed\nin response to the questionnaires issued

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

rectification u/s 154 was filed for 3 Assessment\nyear out of Appeal filed for 4 Assessment year, since an application against\n143(1) order was pending did not provide a ground to file an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) earlier further when an appeal was filed\nin response to the questionnaires issued

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

rectification u/s 154 was filed for the\nrelevant year, since an application against 143(1) order was pending did not\nprovide a ground to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals) earlier further when an appeal was filed in response to the\nquestionnaires issued by the CIT(a). in the course of appeal

LINTAS EMPLOYEES RECREATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

rectification application u/s. 154. This caused immense delay in filing the appeal. (vi) The Assessee Trust contacted their lawyers who suggested that despite there merely being a mistake apparent on record which is clerical in nature, an appeal should be filed in order to get justice and equity. (vii) Accordingly, an appeal has been filed against the Intimation Order u/s

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

rectification u/s 154 of IT. Act 1961 by Hon'ble CIT(A) - 48. Mumbai. Thus order passed is bad in law. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that no incriminating material is required for making addition in the completed assessment before the date of search. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition

SHIV PARVATI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shiv Parvati Co-Operative Housing Ito Ward 22(3)(1), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Vs. 14Th Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400052. Pan No. Aadas 1163 J Appellant Respondent

rectification order u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of interest earned on fixed deposit from/with Co interest earned on fixed deposit from/with Co-operative banks operative banks thereby rejecting case laws

KSHIPRA ENTERPROISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Whereas, the Ld. AR relied upon the detailed submissions filed before Ld.CIT(A) by virtue of statement of facts and also affidavit which is reproduced herein below: 2 Kshipra Enterprises, Mumbai. The appellant is a partnership firm and filed return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income

SILVERLINE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(2)(1)

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 80P(2)(d) was beyond the scope of adjustment. It also found that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to pending rectification applications and the genuine belief that the issue would be resolved. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "80P(2)(d)", "143(1)", "154