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 of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under section 271(1

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 of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under section 271(1

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, 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: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

1 Chief Commissioners of Income-tax are authorized to tax are authorized to admit such applications of condonation of delay under section

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1), an prejudice was caused to the Revenue by the belated filing. It is prejudice was caused to the Revenue by the belated filing. It is prejudice was caused to the Revenue by the belated filing. It is further submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor further submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor further submitted

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

delay therein may be condoned only rein may be condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, as evident from the plain not presenting it within that

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

delay therein may be condoned only rein may be condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, as evident from the plain not presenting it within that

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

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 ()

delay can be condoned only under section 119(2)(b) by the competent authority, and that since the issue originated from the intimation under section 143(1

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay of 372 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. 8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the Assessee that as per Section 36(1

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 139(3), in order to avail ben 139(3), in order to avail benefit of carrying forward or set efit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under any loss under section 80.” 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted Before

UMMEED FOUNDATION,AL SHAKREEN APT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PMT BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Ummeed Foundation, Cit(E), Pune, Room No. 204, A1 Shakreen Apt, 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. Waf Acomplex Chs, H-104, Office, Pmt Building Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, City Commercial Complex, Shankar Convent High School, Thane, Sheth Road, Swargate, Kausa B.O., Maharashtra-400612. Pune-411037. Pan No. Aaatu 4914 H Appellant Respondent

1) of section 12A of the Act, up to 30/09/2023. up to 30/09/2023. Thus, no further extension of time has been granted ther extension of time has been granted for application under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub for application under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section (5) of section

SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. The appellant creaves leave to add, modify and or withdraw The appellant creaves

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act'). 1961 ('IT Act'). The Appellant prays that the delay in filing the app The Appellant prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly eal may kindly be condoned. 2. Ground no. 2: 2. Ground no. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act'). 1961 ('IT Act'). The Appellant prays that the delay in filing the app The Appellant prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly eal may kindly be condoned. 2. Ground no. 2: 2. Ground no. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

delay of 372 days\nin filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to\nadjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in\nthe present appeal.\n8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the\n Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the\nAssessee that as per Section 36(1

SHA HURGOWAN ANANDJI DESAI CHARITIES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC , BENGULURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

delay may kindly be condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the Appellant. Appellant. 4. 4. Without prejudice to the above, 4. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that on the facts

STATE BANK OF INDIA-ISB BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing