ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, 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 statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned d. Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. . Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and therefore appeal and therefore appeal should be sent back to him should be sent back

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, 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 statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned d. Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. . Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and therefore appeal and therefore appeal should be sent back to him should be sent back

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section unexplained cash credit Rs.8,12,16,818/- c) Disallowance of bonafide depreciation Rs.1,19,08,429/- d) Ad-hoc @25% disallowance of expenses Rs.4,70,54,434/-” 6. In this case, there is a delay of 499 days and CIT(A) has given the same reasoning as in a quantum appeal in Para 3.6 to 3.9 which reads

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section unexplained cash credit Rs.8,12,16,818/- c) Disallowance of bonafide depreciation Rs.1,19,08,429/- d) Ad-hoc @25% disallowance of expenses Rs.4,70,54,434/-” 6. In this case, there is a delay of 499 days and CIT(A) has given the same reasoning as in a quantum appeal in Para 3.6 to 3.9 which reads

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 ()

condone the delay in filing Form No.10B for the assessment year 2018-19 which is beyond 365 days and thereafter to deal with the said claim on merit and in accordance with law." 12. Thus, Hon'ble Court affirmed the mandate of section

RAAHAT HUMANITARIAN FOUDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Raahat Humanitarian Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), A 204, Zubaida Park, Behind Simla Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Park, Old Mumbai Pune Road, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Dr Kausa Mumbra, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Thane-400612. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaetr 9830 K Appellant Respondent

Section 12AB of the Act. 12AB of the Act. 2. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the application for the condonation of application for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and delay

THE SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

12. At the same time, the Hon. Apex Court has, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Mst. Katiji [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC), advised for a balanced and pragmatic approach: i. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ii. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown

THE SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

12. At the same time, the Hon. Apex Court has, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Mst. Katiji [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC), advised for a balanced and pragmatic approach: i. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ii. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown

SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

12. At the same time, the Hon. Apex Court has, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Mst. Katiji [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC), advised for a balanced and pragmatic approach: i. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ii. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown

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

condone this delay and thus denied the Assessee the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act. 3. The Assessee

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that assessee Society has made investments as per the statutory requirements governing the Society

SHREE SWAMY SAMARTH PRASSANA OSHIWARA (E) UNITS CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(3), 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: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

section 148 could be issued by assessing officer who should not be below the position of joint officer who should not be below the position of joint officer who should not be below the position of joint commissioner of commissioner of income tax and sanction also has to be of income tax and sanction also

AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

condone the delay with such delay. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.03.2013 declaring total income of ₹.16,90,830/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2018 and submitted as under: - 2) “That I am working as a Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private Limited. Whereas, Mr. Nilesh Mehta is my senior and he is designated as a Senior Accountant. 3) That in case of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2018 and submitted as under: - 2) “That I am working as a Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private Limited. Whereas, Mr. Nilesh Mehta is my senior and he is designated as a Senior Accountant. 3) That in case of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private

MR GANESH ANANDRAO INGULKAR ,MUMABI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleganesh Anandrao Ingulkar V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Centralized Processing Center B/502, Shivram Park Income Tax Department Opp. Ashok Kedare Chowk Bengaluru, Karnataka-560500 Tembipada Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai - 400078 Pan: Aappi6881C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, brief facts of the case are assessee filed its return of income on 05.08.2019 declaring total income of ₹.21,56,790/-. Further, assessee filed revised return of income on 16.06.2020 by declaring the same income as declared in the original return of income. However, assessee claimed relief

INDIA LAND AND PROPERTIES LIMITED (SINCE MERGED WITH EQUINOX INDIA DEVELOPMENTS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA BULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 69 of the Act deserves to be deleted. deserves to be deleted. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 278 days in filing