JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

143(1) of the Act. 7.1 Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and guidelines regarding the condonation of delay

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

143(3) and the said intimation is independently appealable under section 246A(1)(a) of IT Act. independently appealable under section 246A(1)(a) of IT Act. independently appealable under section 246A(1)(a) of IT Act. 3. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying the . The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(1) of the Act along with an application duly explaining the delay in filing the appeal. We further direct the learned CIT(A) to consider the request of the assessee for condonation

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(1) of the Act along with an application duly explaining the delay in filing the appeal. We further direct the learned CIT(A) to consider the request of the assessee for condonation

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

delay of 372 days\nin filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to\nadjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in\nthe present appeal.\n8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the\n Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the\nAssessee that as per Section 36(1)(viia

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay of 372 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. 8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the Assessee that as per Section 36(1)(viia

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

143(1) of the Act and therefore, the decisions relied upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. Shree Pushkar Foundation Shree Pu 4 4. We have heard rival

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

condoned the delay in filing of an appeal for reasonable cause. a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not passing

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

condoned the delay in filing of an appeal for reasonable cause. a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not passing

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 ()

delay can be condoned only under section 119(2)(b) by the competent authority, and that since the issue originated from the intimation under section 143(1

DSP FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -39(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dsp Finance Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc, 11Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre Nariman Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Point, Nariman Point, Dy. Cit-3(1)(1), Mumbai-400021. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacd 3069 K Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1) of the Act. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in declining to condone the delay Whether

SURENDRA HIMMATLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

143(1), dated 17/01/2025 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Intimation Order’] was passed. In the Intimation Order, the Assessing Officer-CPC taxed the royalty income of INR.19,03,766/- at the slab rate of 30% as against special tax rate of 10% under Section 115BBF of the Act as claimed by the Assessee. Further the Assessing Officer-CPC also failed

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condonation of delay and therefore this appeal cannot be decided as it is appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act where the computation made by the ld AO started from the income determined u/s 143 (1) of The Act. However, on this date of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative categorically stated that this appeal can be heard

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condonation of delay and therefore this appeal cannot be decided as it is appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act where the computation made by the ld AO started from the income determined u/s 143 (1) of The Act. However, on this date of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative categorically stated that this appeal can be heard

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condonation of delay and therefore this appeal cannot be decided as it is appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act where the computation made by the ld AO started from the income determined u/s 143 (1) of The Act. However, on this date of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative categorically stated that this appeal can be heard

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

143(3) \nr.w.s. \n144B \nDCIT, Range \n1(1), Mumbai \n30.03.2009 271(1)(c) \n2019-20 \n2020-21 \n2020-21 \n2002-03 \nRevenue \nAssessee \nRevenue \nAssessee \n[Appeals \nagainst \nPenalty \nOrder \npassed \nu/s. \n271(1)(c)] \nDCIT, Range \n1(1), Mumbai \n30.03.2009 271(1)(c) \n2003-04 \nDCIT, Cir-1(1), \nMumbai \n08.10.2010 271(1)(c) \n2005-06 \nDCIT

MARKOLINES INFRA PVT LTD.,BELAPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 143, was ever issued on your\nRespondent, by AO(CPC), before issuing intimation u/s. 143(1) for disallowing\nthe expenditure on payment of Employee's contribution of Rs. 1,75,81,498.\nYour Respondent prays that the intimation u/s 143(1) be held to be bad in law\nand be quashed.\n3. Ground No. 3: Invalid Adjustment u/s. 143

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

143(1) of the Act: (a) Denial of deduction of INR.1,57,73,420/- claimed by the Assessee under Section 80IA of the Act (b) Non grant of credit of dividend distribution tax of INR.46,14,400/- paid on 07/11/2017 and the consequential levy of interest under Section 115P of the Act and raising of demand of INR.65