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.

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under S. 264 (1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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.

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under S. 264 (1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(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

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

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the 6 M/s. Lekha Pariksha Vibhag Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under S. 264 (1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before

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

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 ()

5. Accordingly we allow the application dated 11/12/2024 seeking 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

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That

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

5. The Ld. Counsel The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made oral arguments praying made oral arguments praying admission of additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submission written submissions is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: a. That