DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

114 ITD 121 (Chd)} as well as in the decision in CIT v. Grindlays Bank {208 ITR 700 (Cal.)}. In the case of J. B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT {72 ITR 395 (SC)}, the assessee did not explain the delay for part of the period. 5.6 While distinguishing all these decisions, Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision

LOKUMAL KISHINCHAND CHARITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

delay may be condoned and assessing officer may be directed to allow benefit of section 11 to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj HC),  Social Security Scheme of GICEA vs. CIT(E) (2023) 147 taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat

STRONGBUILD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

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

114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further

STRONGBUILT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

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

114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further

SHRI SIDDHACHAKRA VARDHMAN TAP JAIN AYAMBILKHATA,MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRLIZED PROCESSING CENTRE , 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 stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme

SHRI SIDDHACHAKRA VARDHMAN TAP JAIN AYAMBILKHATA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CPC, CENTRALIZED , 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 stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme

RAMESH LALAWAT,VASHI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

condonation of delay is placed on record. We also note from ground no.1 raised by the assessee that first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was also barred by limitation under provisions of section 249(2) on account of delay of 114

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

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

condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of Assessment without appreciating that in the facts and circumstances of the case reopening is bad in law. 2.1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of Assessment without appreciating that in the facts and circumstances of the case there did not exist any reason to believe 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

condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of Assessment without appreciating that in the facts and circumstances of the case reopening is bad in law. 2.1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of Assessment without appreciating that in the facts and circumstances of the case there did not exist any reason to believe that

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CEN.CIR.46, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

condone the delay of 170 days in filing the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and admit the appeals for adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. M/s. Finance Technologies (India) Ltd. 3. In these appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 3.1.1 Assessment Year 2007-08 1) The Learned

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CEN.CIR.46, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

condone the delay of 170 days in filing the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and admit the appeals for adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. M/s. Finance Technologies (India) Ltd. 3. In these appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 3.1.1 Assessment Year 2007-08 1) The Learned

ACIL NAVASAR JAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

114 Taxman 255 (SC) held "It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub "It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of section 11 section (2) of section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of section 11 to that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit 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:-

delay in filing Form No. 10 electronically. The assessee submitted that only ground for denial of deduction u/s 11(2) of the 1961 Act was non filing of Form No. 10 electronically in time before expiry of time allowed u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessee claimed that Section 11(2) of the 1961 Act which provide

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

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

section 5 M/s Rallis India Ltd. ITA NO.3680/Mumbai/2016 CO NO.185/Mumbai/2016 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net realizable value are items of raw materials

HITESH PAWANRAJ MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

114, R.K. Wadi, 19(1)(5) V.P.Road Girgaon, Mumbai-400004 PAN: AFZPM7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri S. R. Lodhe Respondent by Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 06/03/2025 past by NFAC Delhi for assessment year

R.C SCHOOL OF ST. TERESAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

delay in filing Form-10B, may be condoned and assessing officer may be directed to allow benefit of section 11 to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj HC),  Social Security Scheme of GICEA