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 ()

condonation of delay only) can not make a similar application before Hon'ble Bench. Hence even on this ground, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 6. The current appeal of the assessee is against the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 1443 of the Act, dated 23- 9 Getinge Medical

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 ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in line with the CBDT Circular No. 16/2022. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. The appeal was technically required to be filed on or before 15.12.2023, However, since the Petition for Condonation of Delay in Filing Form No. 108

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)

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in line with the CBDT Circular No. 16/2022. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. The appeal was technically required to be filed on or before 15.12.2023, However, since the Petition for Condonation of Delay in Filing Form No. 108

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

condoned and the benefits of section 11 be granted to the Appellant. 1.4. It is submitted that the said Audit Report in Form 10B was available on record when the e-Return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Hence, the delayed filing of the said Audit Report cannot be fatal so as to lead

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

SACRED HEART CHURCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(3), MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condonation for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned

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

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

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

condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. In this case, the assessee has filed Form 108

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

condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. In this case, the assessee has filed Form 108

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

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

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

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

SNEHASADAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

Section 12A(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee is free to file the said Form 10B online and/or approach the CIT-(Exemption), Ahmedabad after filing Form 10B electronically and to condone the delay in accordance with the delegated powers vested u/s.119

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