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

10A , section 10AA, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB , section 44DA, section 50B, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, section 115JB, section 115JC] or section 115VW or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

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

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

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

2. Representations have been received in the Board with a request to condone the delay i to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same , as the same could not be filed in such cases wit could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e hin the last extended date

DATTA PRASAD SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

DY.CIT-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SITEL INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide this appeal on merits. 4. In its appeal, assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that there was no intention of shifting profits outside India by the Appellant and has further failed in not giving any finding/ reasoning

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide this appeal on merits. 4. In its appeal, assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that there was no intention of shifting profits outside India by the Appellant and has further failed in not giving any finding/ reasoning

ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (NOW BTG ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION),MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condoning the delay in the filing of the application in Form 10AB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for regularization of the Provisional Registration of the Appellant under section 12AB of the Act, 1961, as the delay was bona fide and supported by reasonable cause. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions

HYDRO PNEUMATIC ACCESSORIES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Hydro Pneumatic Ito-10(3)(1), Mumbai. Accessories India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 17, Raja Industrial Estate, P.K. Road, Nahur Village, Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080. Pan No. Aaach1351A Respondent Appellant Assessee By : Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abiram Kartikeyan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

condone the delay of 569 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. Part disallowance of Deduction u/s 10B-Rs.16,10,585/- a The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 10B overlooking and not appreciating the fact that the item of claim received

GURU TEGBAHADUR CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 26 (1)(5), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.- Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.” A plain reading of the above sub-section would show that where claim of deduction under section 10A/10AA/10B/10BA or any provisions of Chapter

RAJ TARANG HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WARD 32(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.- Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.” A plain reading of the above sub-section would show that where claim of deduction under section 10A/10AA/10B/10BA or any provisions of Chapter

CARTRADE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

10A(8) of the Act ITA No.7923 & 7924/Mum/2025 6 are mandatory in nature. However, from a plain reading of the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, it is evident that the statute authorises the learned CIT(E) to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10AB upon being satisfied regarding the existence of reasonable cause

PARIJAT CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 28 2 1, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

10A, Nerul, Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 706 (PAN : AAAAP2429D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Sushant Alme, CA Revenue : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by assessee are against the orders of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S INFRASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

section 10A by holding that the new unit was set up by the assessee on 28.03.2000. 2 Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., AY 2006-07 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 72 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, Revenue has placed on record an application seeking

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

delay. Both the appeals either cross objection or cross appeal for the respective assessment years have been delayed filed. The reasons given for late filing of appeal does not show sufficient cause on behalf of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The reason provided for the delayed filing does contain in action or negligence on the part

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

delay. Both the appeals either cross objection or cross appeal for the respective assessment years have been delayed filed. The reasons given for late filing of appeal does not show sufficient cause on behalf of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The reason provided for the delayed filing does contain in action or negligence on the part

NITCON SOCIAL FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2 months from the date of Order i.e. by\n14/05/2024.\n7) Assessee Company was not aware of the procedure to address the\nrejection order u/s.80G(5) as the company was handling the same by their\ninhouse staff.\n8) Assessee Company was made to understand that condonation of delay in\nmaking application u/s.80G(5) (iii) was required to be made

JYOTI PRAKASH DESHMUKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), KALYAN

In the result ground no. 5

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountantjyoti Prakash Deshmukh F003, Shiv Shanti Complex, Manjarli, Badlapur West, Maharashtra – 421 301, Pan No.: Agspd2705K. ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Kalyan Mohini Plaza Building, Wayle Nagar, Khadkpada, Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421 301 ..... Respondent

delay condonation application. 3 Jyoti Prakash Deshmukh The appellant has not filed any appeal before high court and or Supreme Court of India. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, vary, delete and/or withdraw any of the above ground of appeal. The Appellant prays that: 1. The Appeal be admitted and allowed fully. 2. The Impugned order

ASST CIT 12(4), MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD ( FORMLERY M.S, TCS BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION SOLUTION LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, the plea of assessee under rule 27 of the Tribunal

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Income Tax, Large Tax (Formerly M/S Tcs Payer Unit, Business Transformation Centre-1 28Th Floor, World Vs. Solutions Ltd.) Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Sjm Towers, 18, Sheshadri Mumbai-400 005 Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009 Pan No.Aacp8925G Appellant .. Respondent

2. Against the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.1961 ('The Act"), for Assessment Year 2005-06. the Respondent had filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - I ['the CIT(A)'] on certain additions I disallowances and certain Transfer Pricing adjustments 3. The CIT(A) vide order dated 23 August

SHRI PARSHWA TILAK SHWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

2. Trust has prevented by sufficient cause in filing of application in form 10AB Due to over sight, admisnstrative lapse in chartered accountant's office appliaction filed late due to chartered accountant office fault appellant should not be suffer. 3. CIT(E) has erred in not condoning the late filing of application in form 10AB by mentioning it is well