TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with regard to assessee’s claim of exemption either Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with regard to assessee’s claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

34) and 10(35) of the Act raised\nin Ground No.2, the Ground No.1 for the purpose of present appeal having become\nacademic is kept open.\n\n18.\nGround No.4 being consequential in nature does not require specific\nadjudication.\n\n19.\nIn the result, appeal is partly allowed.\n\nITA No. 4852/Mum/2024 (Revenue's appeal

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

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

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 Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Shah Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR Date of Hearing : 18/08/2025 : 26/08/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee

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

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 Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Shah Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR Date of Hearing : 18/08/2025 : 26/08/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee

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 ()

delayed filing of Form 10-IC, automatically invalidates an option already exercised in the return. The assessee’s eligibility to opt for section 115BAA is not in dispute; only the timing of filing the prescribed form is in question. Thus, the controversy in the present facts does not involve enlargement of delegated condonation power, but interpretation of the substantive provision

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

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

34,124 under section 234A of the IT Act alth under section 234A of the IT Act although the return of income was ough the return of income was filed within the due date. filed within the due date. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A

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

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

34,124 under section 234A of the IT Act alth under section 234A of the IT Act although the return of income was ough the return of income was filed within the due date. filed within the due date. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of t Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the year under he case are that for the year under consideration no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. consideration no regular return of income was filed

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that assessee Society has made investments as per the statutory requirements governing the Society

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

34) 7,88,64,220/- 24.44% of section 10 Interest income on unit scheme 1964 exempt 16,32,987/- 0.50% under sub-section (35) of section 10 Total 32,27,17,773/- 100% 3.14. Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Sec. 115JB(2), only the expenditure relating to income other than income assessable

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE CIT (A), NFACE INC TX DEPT, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

10(34) under which assessee claimed the exemption deals with dividends and not profit on sale of listed shares. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the entire consideration of Rs.393,39,28,268/- as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). There was a 68 days of delay in filing

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

Section, the first Appellate Authority may on good and sufficient reason for the delay shown by the appellant, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the cause for delayed appeal should be "sufficient", "correct", "genuine" and "convincing one". Here is the case where there is no sufficient and genuine reason for filing appeal after

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return