THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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)

condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing of an additional ground is 16 years and no cogent evidence or no explanation has been filed by the assessee to justify the substantial delay of 16 years. In fact

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

120 taxmann.com 427 (Telangana) and requested to condone the\ndelay.\n5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (Id. Sr. DR)\nfor the revenue supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was\ninordinate delay in filling appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not been\nable to establish sufficient cause for delay in filing

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "143(2)", "147", "144", "144B", "148", "151", "124", "120", "142(1)", "142" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the cross-objection should be condoned

TIRTH GLOBAL FOUNDATION,CHEMBUR vs. ITO 27(3)(1) MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Tirth Global Foundation V/S. Income Tax Officer–27(3)(1), 601, Glass View Society, Plot बनाम Vashi Railway Station, No. 13, Pestom Sagar, Road No. Mumbai – 400 703, 3, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Maharashtra Chembur, Mumbai – 400089, Mumbai, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadtt5346D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

condone the delay setting aside the appellate order and proceed to adjudicate the grounds on merit. 5. According to the order, the trust filed an application in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. Various details were called for by the ld.CIT. After a careful perusal of the submission, it was noticed

TIRTH GLOBAL FOUNDATION,CHEMBUR vs. ITO 27(3)(1) MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Tirth Global Foundation V/S. Income Tax Officer–27(3)(1), 601, Glass View Society, Plot बनाम Vashi Railway Station, No. 13, Pestom Sagar, Road No. Mumbai – 400 703, 3, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Maharashtra Chembur, Mumbai – 400089, Mumbai, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadtt5346D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

condone the delay setting aside the appellate order and proceed to adjudicate the grounds on merit. 5. According to the order, the trust filed an application in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. Various details were called for by the ld.CIT. After a careful perusal of the submission, it was noticed

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

SANGEETA JAGDISH KENY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

section 2(47)(iv) r.w.s. 45(2) of the Income Tax Act were applicable and the capital gain is taxable in the year such stock is sold or transferred.” 3. At the outset, it was noted that the captioned appeal has been filed belatedly after a delay of 1406 days. The assessee has sought condonation of delay, and in support

NARSHI GOPALJI MANGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

condonation of delay. On the merits of the case the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shop on 03.12.2010 for Rs. 1,59,00,000/- against which he paid stamp duty of Rs. 8,25,940/-. The shop was financed through financial institution (Reliance Capital Limited). A financial papers of assessee was not strong, loan was sanctioned in name