NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

2), where an order has been made under section 201 on or after the order has been made under section 201 on or after the order has been made under section 201 on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

2), where an order has been made under section 201 on or after the order has been made under section 201 on or after the order has been made under section 201 on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June

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 cannot be condoned as a matter of course. However, where an appeal is demonstrably filed of course. However, where an appeal is demonstrably filed of course. However, where an appeal is demonstrably filed within limitation, the rejection of a subsequent appeal on limitation within limitation, the rejection of a subsequent appeal on limitation within limitation, the rejection

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 cannot be condoned as a matter of course. However, where an appeal is demonstrably filed of course. However, where an appeal is demonstrably filed of course. However, where an appeal is demonstrably filed within limitation, the rejection of a subsequent appeal on limitation within limitation, the rejection of a subsequent appeal on limitation within limitation, the rejection

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 ()

section 119(2)(b) and held that the CBDT's exercise of such a power is legally correct and in asking the assessee to submit an application back to CBDT, Hon'ble High Court affirmed that power to condone the delay is there with CBDT only. Accordingly, since allowing the appeal in the case would effectively amount to condonation

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

2 "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

2 "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

2 "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse

SHA HURGOWAN ANANDJI DESAI CHARITIES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC , BENGULURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

delay may kindly be condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the Appellant. Appellant. 4. 4. Without prejudice to the above, 4. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that on the facts

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

13 | P a g e Page 14 of 33 CBDT circular no. 7 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018(F.No. 197/55/2018- ITA-I) wherein CBDT has relaxed the provisions relating to filing of form no. 10 electronically for AY 2016-17. The said CBDT circular is reproduced hereunder:- “Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, 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: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

delay was due to technical glitches on the income tax Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on 31/03/2022, Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on for which no proper solution was provided. for which no proper solution was provided. Before us, the assessee Before us, the assessee

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the returned income. 2.4 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee created a assessee created a provision

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the returned income. 2.4 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee created a assessee created a provision

FRANSALIAN SOCIETY NALLASOPARA,VASAI THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD - 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

section 11(2)(a) of the Act held that the appellant has not fulfilled the pre-condition to file the requisite report within the prescribed due date mentioned u/s. 13(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) at paragraph 5.4.3 also held that the appellant has informed that it has applied for condonation of delay

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

2) is attracted\".\n2\n\"Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the\ninvestment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd.\nis in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section