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

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

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

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

10A [, section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB [, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-1 A, section 80-1B, 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

LEKHA PARIKSHA VIBHAG KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,THANE vs. CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed

Bench: Us. We Find That The Said Delay Has Been Properly

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

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

5 years ie till 2027-2028 in which case the application for renewal was made well within time. Without prejudice to above the mistake being bonafide wrong referring the sub-sections, the delay may be condoned as held in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250/251 Taxman 270/299 CTR 463 (Bom) (HC),delay

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

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

5) by the Finance Act 2024. This condonation\nof delay in filing this Appeal be placed before Hon. Members of ITAT,\nMumbai and I request your Honours to condone the delay in filing this\nAppeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions),\nMumbai.\n4. The Ld. DR objected to the submission of Ld. AR for condonation

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

5 In Artist Tree Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the assessee filed its return of income after delay of 22 months. Since there was a delay in filing the return beyond the period specified u/s 139(1) and (4) of the Act, the AO did not act upon the return. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application u/s 119(2)(b) before

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

THE ANJUMANE TAIYEBI,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTION , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Anjumanetaiyebi Cit Exemption Husaini Masjid Bldg 1St Floor Room No. 601 6Thflr, 66-68 Husainiyah Ma, Mandvi Post Vs. Camballahill,Mtnl Building, Office, Mumbai- 400013 Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaata 000 7 H Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. As regards the grounds raised in the appeal, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that an inadvertent error occurred while filing the application in Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 80G. She explained that in the said application, the assessee erroneously selected clause (ii) of the first proviso

INSTITUTE FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are That, Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered Since 10/01/1980 Looking To Its Activities Carried Out For Charitable Purposes Which Was Granted Registration U/S.12A & Approval U/S.80G From Time To Time. The Last Approval U/S.12A / 12Aa Was Granted To The Trust On 24/09/2021 & Even The Approval U/S.80G Was Also Granted From Time To Time. It Has Been Stated That Post Year 2021 The Process Of Application For Renewal Of Approvals U/S.12A & 80G Was Made Completely Online By Way Of E-Filing. Since Assessee Trust Was Not Well Versed With E-Filing & New Compliances & Rules, Was Dependent Upon The Consultants. The Consultant Made Lot Of Errors As Procedures Were New, He Made Mistake In Filing Such Application By Quoting Wrong Clause Of Section 80G.

10A once it was uploaded. As a result, it was beyond the control of the assessee to correct the same. The assessee was granted provisional approval u/s 80G on 23.06.2022, for a period from 23.06.2022 to AY 2024-25, though it should have been granted upto AY 2025-26. Since assessee had erroneously mentioned 'clause (iv) of the first Proviso

INSTITUTE FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are That, Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered Since 10/01/1980 Looking To Its Activities Carried Out For Charitable Purposes Which Was Granted Registration U/S.12A & Approval U/S.80G From Time To Time. The Last Approval U/S.12A / 12Aa Was Granted To The Trust On 24/09/2021 & Even The Approval U/S.80G Was Also Granted From Time To Time. It Has Been Stated That Post Year 2021 The Process Of Application For Renewal Of Approvals U/S.12A & 80G Was Made Completely Online By Way Of E-Filing. Since Assessee Trust Was Not Well Versed With E-Filing & New Compliances & Rules, Was Dependent Upon The Consultants. The Consultant Made Lot Of Errors As Procedures Were New, He Made Mistake In Filing Such Application By Quoting Wrong Clause Of Section 80G.

10A once it was uploaded. As a result, it was beyond the control of the assessee to correct the same. The assessee was granted provisional approval u/s 80G on 23.06.2022, for a period from 23.06.2022 to AY 2024-25, though it should have been granted upto AY 2025-26. Since assessee had erroneously mentioned 'clause (iv) of the first Proviso

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

M/S. LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

condone the delay.\n5.7\nIt is further stated that non-consideration of the explanations\nsubmitted by the appellant and issuing an adverse order without giving\nan opportunity of being heard is against the principle of Natural Justice\nand shall cause undue hardship to it. The delay in filing of application\nfor registration was on account of genuine medical reasons

LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

condone the delay.\n5.7\nIt is further stated that non-consideration of the explanations\nsubmitted by the appellant and issuing an adverse order without giving\nan opportunity of being heard is against the principle of Natural Justice\nand shall cause undue hardship to it. The delay in filing of application\nfor registration was on account of genuine medical reasons

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

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing the application. It was further submitted that the rejection of the application without confronting the Assessee had resulted in grave prejudice to the Assessee and therefore, the order passed by CIT(E) be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the Assessee to make out a case for registration under Section 80G(5