STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA-RBO II THANE WESTERN BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA- NRI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-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

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 of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

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 ()

45 days. 5.2.The Ld.AR submitted that,Section 115BAA was introduced by Finance Act 2019 w.e.f. Assessment Year 2020-21 onwards. Due to the on-going pandemic there wasthere was no clarity and a confusion existed in respect of application and selection of theoption provided under the section. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee thus was in the process of understanding

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

45; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D. Gopinathan Pillai V. State of Haryana Hon’ble Supreme Court gave guidelines on condonation of delay deciding that the courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, however the court while allowing such application has to draw distinction

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

45; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D. Gopinathan Pillai V. State of Haryana Hon’ble Supreme Court gave guidelines on condonation of delay deciding that the courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, however the court while allowing such application has to draw distinction

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

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

45,32,000/- under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of ₹1,31,81,815/- - under section 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and 115JB

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

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

45,32,000/- under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of ₹1,31,81,815/- - under section 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and 115JB

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

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

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

10,01,733/- may be deleted.” 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal with appreciating that Assessee had shown sufficient cause for delay and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of Assessment without appreciating that

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

10,01,733/- may be deleted.” 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal with appreciating that Assessee had shown sufficient cause for delay and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of Assessment without appreciating that