KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

10. During the course of the First Appellate Proceedings, I was issued a notice under section 250 of the Act dated 16.10.2023 issued a notice under section 250 of the Act dated 16.10.2023 issued a notice under section 250 of the Act dated 16.10.2023 wherein I was given an oppor wherein I was given an opportunity to furnish the reason

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

108 as per CBDT Circular 16/2022 dated 19-07-2022. Here the principle of Natural justice is not provided to the appellant as NO opportunity of being heard has been provided. The intimation of Enablement of Communication Window is the only information received and NO notice u/s. 250 asking to submit the written submissions has been served on the appellant

DAMANI WELFARE AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

108 for AY 2018-19 and for subsequent years, the CIT (Exmp) has been authorized u/s. 119(2) (b) to grant the condonation on the merits of the case. The assesse is covered under the aforesaid circular for the purpose of making an application for condonation of delay Sir, the delay in filing of audit report in form

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

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

108 was pending before the CIT(E), the Appellant did not initially file the appeal against the Appellate Order. Thus, there is a delay of 434 days in filing the above appeal. It is submitted that the Appellant has a very strong case on merits. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the delay be condoned, and the appeal be decided

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

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

108 was pending before the CIT(E), the Appellant did not initially file the appeal against the Appellate Order. Thus, there is a delay of 434 days in filing the above appeal. It is submitted that the Appellant has a very strong case on merits. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the delay be condoned, and the appeal be decided

ST. THOMAS CHURCH,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 296/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) St Thomas Church V/S. Income Tax Officer 1, Church Road, बिाम (Exemptions) Ward 2(4), Goregaon (East), Mumbai Mumbai 400063 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4878R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel-Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Cit Dr

10-B cannot be fatal in as much as the benefits of section 11 cannot be denied on this solitary ground. The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the ratio of various judicial pronouncements in this behalf. 1.3. The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the requirement prescribed under section 12A(1)(b) of the Act is merely procedural

KCA CO OPERATIVE CERDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. MUM-(197)(91), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

108] declined to condone a delay of four years, holding that delay without sufficient cause cannot be condoned. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7696/2021 (disposed of on 16.12.2021), relying on Basavaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC_81], observed: “The expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed, in the above terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

108 by holding as under: "That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and which is substantial amount". 11. Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, we direct the AO to consider Form no.10B

SMT LAXMIDEVI SOMANI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

108 the approach of the authorities ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious. Further, availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. This Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries

JV FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

108 on 24.01.2018. The delay by the assessee in filing of Form No. 10Bis 1223 days: The assessee has applied for condonation of delay after a further period of 2346 days on 27.06.2024. The assessee has delayed filing of Form 10B in AYs/. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18. Hence it is a habitual defaulter, In view

J V FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

108 on 24.01.2018. The delay by the assessee in filing of Form No. 10Bis 1223 days: The assessee has applied for condonation of delay after a further period of 2346 days on 27.06.2024. The assessee has delayed filing of Form 10B in AYs/. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18. Hence it is a habitual defaulter, In view

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

condone the delay of 119\ndays and admit the appeal for disposing off the same on merits.\n5. Assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds in its\nappeal:\n\"1. Confirming the addition of Rs. 8,60,124/- on account of\ninterest paid on Loans borrowed for purchase of Surat Property\nwhich was given on Rent

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay of 404 days, since the balance 715 days are attributable to the period of Pandemic of Covid 19 covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its suo moto writ petition (supra). 7. From the perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), it is noted that issue as to whether the enhanced compensation

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay of 404 days, since the balance 715 days are attributable to the period of Pandemic of Covid 19 covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its suo moto writ petition (supra). 7. From the perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), it is noted that issue as to whether the enhanced compensation

ELECTRONFAB ENGINEERING PVT LTD,SEEPZ SEZ MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

108 of Paper Book).\n\n3. Prior to the filing of return, the Assessee had already filed Form 10 IC in accordance with Rule\n21AE of the Income Tax Rules and therefore fulfilled all the conditions necessary for claiming the\nsimplified Tax Scheme u/s 115BAA of the Act.\n\n4. In the fact that the Assessee has made a claim

ATTIVO PROTEZIONE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-22(1)(1), LALBAUG

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainattivo Protezione Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward – 22(1)(1) 108, 1St Floor Ashar Enclave Room No. 319, Piramal Kolshet Road, Thane – 400 Chambers, Mumbai 607. Pan/Gir No. Aalca4330M (Applicant) (Respondent)

108, 1st Floor Ashar Enclave Room No. 319, Piramal Kolshet Road, Thane – 400 Chambers, Mumbai 607. PAN/GIR No. AALCA4330M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Rajesh Sakhardane, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

108 ITD 457 • Everplus Securities & Finance Ltd. v. DCIT 101 ITD 151 • DCIT v. SG Investments & industries Ltd. 89 ITD 44 17. We have considered rival contentions and found that a clear finding has been given by the CIT(A) to the effect that amount was receivable on account of hire charges on machinery from JV or on account

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

108 ITD 457 • Everplus Securities & Finance Ltd. v. DCIT 101 ITD 151 • DCIT v. SG Investments & industries Ltd. 89 ITD 44 17. We have considered rival contentions and found that a clear finding has been given by the CIT(A) to the effect that amount was receivable on account of hire charges on machinery from JV or on account

SHELTER CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

condone the delay of 194 days in the furnishing of the Audit Report in the prescribed Form 108. (8) The Assessing officer has erred in Law Initiating Penalty Proceeding Under Section of The 2710) C) of The Income Tax Act 1961 (9) The Assessing officer has erred in Law in charging the Interest under Section 234, 2343 234c. - Unjustified. (10