MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

section 80.” 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the return of that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

condonation of the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. Rule 127 of the IT Rules provides that it would sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section

YOJANA SURESH BHOIR,THANE vs. CPC, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Sections 234B and 234C of the Income tax Act.\n5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the above.”\n5. We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf\nof the revenue. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant has shown\nsufficient grounds for condonation of delay before

JAY MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(5), MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jay Maharashtra Co-Op. Credit Ito 19(1)(5), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Vs. Room No. 1, Ground Floor, Shiv Parel, Bhavan, Bldg. No. 25, 4Th Mumbai-400012. Kamathipura, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008. Pan No. Aafaj 3385 B Appellant Respondent

150 days in filing the appeal. A petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed, explaining that the of delay along with an affidavit has been filed, explainin of delay along with an affidavit has been filed, explainin order of the Ld. CIT(A) was served only through the Income-tax order

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing appeal. The facts of the matter are that The facts of the matter are that a senior counsel, KB. a senior counsel, KB. Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing appeal. The facts of the matter are that The facts of the matter are that a senior counsel, KB. a senior counsel, KB. Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal

RAHUL GANGARAM KANAGANDULA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula 203, Vikas Darshan, Income Tax Officer, Shankar Puppala Road, Ward 20(3)(1) 12Th Lane Nagpada, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alepk1983F

section 147 of the Act was passed on 20th December, 2017, at a total income of ₹52,17,150/-. 04. Assessee aggrieved with the same filed appeal before the learned CIT (A), wherein the assessee was asked for delay in filing of appeal. As per the contention request filed by the assessee such delay was condoned

VATSALYA B WING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed and Ground No

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

150 Officer 5. Assessing 19/11/2024 02/01/2025 44 Officer 6. Assessing 30/01/2025 10/02/2025 10 Officer 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The fact that Assessee has been raising grievances before the incorrect forum cannot be considered as the basis for condoning delay in filing

VATSALYA B WING CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed and Ground No

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

150 Officer 5. Assessing 19/11/2024 02/01/2025 44 Officer 6. Assessing 30/01/2025 10/02/2025 10 Officer 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The fact that Assessee has been raising grievances before the incorrect forum cannot be considered as the basis for condoning delay in filing

VATSALYA B WING CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed and Ground No

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

150 Officer 5. Assessing 19/11/2024 02/01/2025 44 Officer 6. Assessing 30/01/2025 10/02/2025 10 Officer 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The fact that Assessee has been raising grievances before the incorrect forum cannot be considered as the basis for condoning delay in filing

VATSALYA B WING CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed and Ground No

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

150 Officer 5. Assessing 19/11/2024 02/01/2025 44 Officer 6. Assessing 30/01/2025 10/02/2025 10 Officer 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The fact that Assessee has been raising grievances before the incorrect forum cannot be considered as the basis for condoning delay in filing

CHANDRU SHEWAKRAM WATWANI HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16

condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

150/- and Rs.3,58,100/-, respectively. 2. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee also invited our attention that all the appeals are time barred by 24 days. It was requested that the delay may be condoned. The learned Counsel also explained the circumstances which caused delay. 2.1. On the other hand, the learned CIT(DR) opposed the condonation

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

150/- and Rs.3,58,100/-, respectively. 2. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee also invited our attention that all the appeals are time barred by 24 days. It was requested that the delay may be condoned. The learned Counsel also explained the circumstances which caused delay. 2.1. On the other hand, the learned CIT(DR) opposed the condonation

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

150/- and Rs.3,58,100/-, respectively. 2. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee also invited our attention that all the appeals are time barred by 24 days. It was requested that the delay may be condoned. The learned Counsel also explained the circumstances which caused delay. 2.1. On the other hand, the learned CIT(DR) opposed the condonation

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

150/- and Rs.3,58,100/-, respectively. 2. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee also invited our attention that all the appeals are time barred by 24 days. It was requested that the delay may be condoned. The learned Counsel also explained the circumstances which caused delay. 2.1. On the other hand, the learned CIT(DR) opposed the condonation

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri)

150 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee furnished application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit in support thereof. The assessee in affidavit explained that the appellate order dated 19/11/2024 and related 3 ITA No. 4144/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15 The Oriental Insurance Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. notices were communicated to incorrect email