OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered

MR GANESH ANANDRAO INGULKAR ,MUMABI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleganesh Anandrao Ingulkar V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Centralized Processing Center B/502, Shivram Park Income Tax Department Opp. Ashok Kedare Chowk Bengaluru, Karnataka-560500 Tembipada Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai - 400078 Pan: Aappi6881C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered

INDIA LAND AND PROPERTIES LIMITED (SINCE MERGED WITH EQUINOX INDIA DEVELOPMENTS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA BULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble 8 ITA No.426/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 India Land and Properties Limited Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about

MINAKSHI SINGH,MEERUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6648/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

153 ITR 596)\nconsidered the condonation of delay and held that there was\nsufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not\nfiling the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras\nHigh Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the\nappeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 160 days cannot

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

153 ITR 596)\nconsidered the condonation of delay and held that there was\nsufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for\nnot filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble\nMadras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in\nfiling the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 48\ndays cannot

PREVISION PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(2)(4), MUMUBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

153 ITR 596) considered\nthe condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and\nreasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the\nappeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High\nCourt thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the\nappeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 65 days cannot

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. 9 I.T.A. No. 6557/Mum/2025 5.1. Undoubtedly, the present situation of non-filing of Form10 cannot be treated as a culpable negligence on behalf of assessee. The reason being that, assessee was under the bona fide belief that since the amount that falls within the category of tied up grant that was set apart

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. 9 I.T.A. No. 6557/Mum/2025 5.1. Undoubtedly, the present situation of non-filing of Form10 cannot be treated as a culpable negligence on behalf of assessee. The reason being that, assessee was under the bona fide belief that since the amount that falls within the category of tied up grant that was set apart

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), 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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions

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

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAPGEMINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 55, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds pressed during the course of hearing by Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant invited our attention to the Ground No. 16 and 17 raised as additional ground

KIRTIKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL BHIMANI (PROPERITOR M/S. SHANTI INDUSTRIES) ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

section 143(1) for appeal with Form 35. Appellant had received above notice on 04/07/2022 with demand due of Rs. 3,50,980/- and had disagree with demand on 25/02/2022 stating the reason but demand was not deleted. Further appellant received mail on 20/05/2025 for demand due. Hence appellant have to file appeal against this order. The delay in filling

SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA,THANE vs. WARD 3(2) THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

section 154 on 09/08/2025, which is still pending before the CIT(A). 4. The appellant, under the bonafide belief that the rectification would be processed but it is still pending for disposal and therefore the appellant did not approach the Hon’ble Tribunal earlier. The present appeal before the ITAT is being filed as a protective measure to safeguard