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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with regard to assessee’s claim of exemption either Section

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with regard to assessee’s claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -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. 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

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

2)(h) of the Act is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the assessee\nsubmitted that though in assessee's case in AY 2012-13 (Supra), the coordinate\nBench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, however, for the purpose of\npresent appeal the issue will become academic, in case assessee's claim of\nexemption u/s.10

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

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

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

2 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) received the assessment order on 16/10/2012, that is after a gap of almost 10 months. In fact, there is no mention of this fact in this application filed for condonation of delay. It is interesting to note that even if it is presumed

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

2 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) received the assessment order on 16/10/2012, that is after a gap of almost 10 months. In fact, there is no mention of this fact in this application filed for condonation of delay. It is interesting to note that even if it is presumed

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.

2. The explanation has to cover the entire period of delay 3. A litigant should not be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. 4. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay. 5. The discretion conferred on the Court

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.

2. The explanation has to cover the entire period of delay 3. A litigant should not be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. 4. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay. 5. The discretion conferred on the Court

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.

2. The explanation has to cover the entire period of delay 3. A litigant should not be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. 4. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay. 5. The discretion conferred on the Court

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

2),\nwhere an order has been made under section 201 on or after\nthe 1st day of October 1998 but before the 1st day of June,\n2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any\nappeal within the time specified in that sub-section, he may\npresent such appeal before the 1st day of July, 2000.\nThe Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NANDANBALA COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesse is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2) Private Limited Room No. 452, 4 Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sanjay Infraspace Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 1401-A, Wing One Bkc, M.K. Road, Plot No. C-66, G-Block, Mumbai – 400020 Bkc, Bandra-East Mumbai -400 092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavcs1575L Appellant .. Respondent

Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression for the purpose of earning income, profits and gains". That the expenditure incurred voluntarily and meeting the "commercial expediency test is to be allowed as a deduction and it is immaterial if a third party benefits by said expenditure. The Revenue can not assume the role and occupy

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

condoned.\n3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons

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

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

13. We also noted that similar issue has arisen before the ‘F’ Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tata Communication Ltd. in ITA No. 6981 & 7071/Mum/2005 for A.Y. 2002-03 and the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.06.2017, while dealing with this issue held as under : 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available