HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

condoning such an inordinate delay of 162 days. Further, it is noted that the assessment order was duly served upon the appellant through electronic means on registered e-mail as per Rule 127 of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Rule-127 is reproduced as under :- "(1) For the purposes of sub-section

ACCESS DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.600/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Office No. 15, Floor- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mezzanine, Laxmidas Mumbai-400020. Khimji Market, 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vitthalwadi, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0551C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2366 Days [I.E, Six (6) Years & 05 Months] In Filing Of This Appeal Before This Tribunal. 3. First Of All Will Deal With The Application Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Manish Panwar For Condonation Of In-Ordinate Delay. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Gold Bullion & Bars. For The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income After Declaring Loss Of Rs. (8,932)/- On 27.09.2012. The Return Of Income Was Initially Processed U/S.143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny.

section 154 was served upon him at the old address. That communication had also consumed time. Therefore, the assessee could not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was the result of ill health coupled with the change of his address thrice in a short

MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appeal was filed on 30.08.2022 against the assessment order dated 26.03.2022. Thus, there was a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The learned CIT(A) first proceeded to examine the issue of condonation

BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT25(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 249(2) the appeal should have been filed within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the order and the notice of demand i.e. on 30/12/2011. However, the appeal has been filed on 15/06/2012 being delayed by more than 4 months and 1 week (127 days). The appellant has filed for condonation

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. 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. 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)

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

JV FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 44AB of the Act and filed the same on 24.01.2018. However, no evidence of having filed the Form on the above date was furnished before the ld.CIT(A).Although the CIT(A) condoned the delay for filing of appeal, he dismissed the appeal on the observation that the request for condonation of delay in filing of Form no.10B before

J V FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 44AB of the Act and filed the same on 24.01.2018. However, no evidence of having filed the Form on the above date was furnished before the ld.CIT(A).Although the CIT(A) condoned the delay for filing of appeal, he dismissed the appeal on the observation that the request for condonation of delay in filing of Form no.10B before

BRIHAN MUMBAI KREEDA & LALITKALA PRATISHTAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E(-I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

condonation of delay of 21 months in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 8.12.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 42,78,127/-.the assessee trust was registered as charitable organization with DIT(E) , Mumbai u/s 12A of the Act vide registration No. TR./27679

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 in fling the appeal petition. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeal), NFAC erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in rejecting the claim of capitalized interest cost of RS. 3,127,030 as part of cost of the shop and, disallowing

BUENO INSTA PIZZA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Bueno Insta Pizza Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle 78/9, 2Nd Floor, 6(1)(2) Krishna Vihar, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. R. A. Kidwal Road, Mumbai- 400020. Wadala, Mumbai- 400031. Pan: Aagcb3987J (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

CHEMSTAR ORGANICS (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(1),

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.623/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2004-05) M/S. Chemstar Organics बिाम/ Income Tax Officer Range (India) Ltd. 1(1)(2), Mumbai 4T H Floor, Pnb House, V. Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc9210F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr)

section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and I.T.A. No.623/Mum/2016 all other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara-1, Vadodara, hereby transfer the case, the particulars whereof are mentioned in column No. 2 of the Schedule appended hereunder, from the Assessing Officer mentioned in column No. 3 to the Assessing Officer

VIIKING MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) CENTRAL CIR4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blev. Acit – Central Circle-4(4) Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd., 604-065, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Air India Building Hiranandani Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacj9884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkant Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Ms. Richa Gulati Department Represented By :

condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal filed in Form no 36 :– “The following grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to one another – 1. The Assistant Commissioner of income-tax, Central

GLOBAL WOOL ALLIANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA

sections": ["143(3)", "69A", "40(a)(ia)", "127"], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

BHAVANA RITESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

127 days, due to professional preoccupation. The delay was neither intentional nor mala fide but occurred due to the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that, in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned. On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee and submitted that the assessee failed to demonstrate a plausible

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

127 of the Act. The Appellant submits that both the aforesaid The Appellant submits that both the aforesaid The Appellant submits that both the aforesaid grounds dealing with jurisdiction goes to the root of grounds dealing with jurisdiction goes to the root of grounds dealing with jurisdiction goes to the root of M/s Nuclear Power Corporation of India