ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

UTTARPRATHA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

section 11 and 12 due to procedural lapse: ITA No. 3467 to 3469-/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19) Uttarpratha Trust On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of denying the exemption claimed

UTTARPRATHA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

section 11 and 12 due to procedural lapse: ITA No. 3467 to 3469-/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19) Uttarpratha Trust On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of denying the exemption claimed

UTTARPRATHA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

section 11 and 12 due to procedural lapse: ITA No. 3467 to 3469-/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19) Uttarpratha Trust On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of denying the exemption claimed

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission