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

7 taken in appeal and hence they are treated as dismissed.” 4. We find that the order of CIT(A) is unassailable in term of the detailed findings recorded by him for not condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence

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

7 taken in appeal and hence they are treated as dismissed.” 4. We find that the order of CIT(A) is unassailable in term of the detailed findings recorded by him for not condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence

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 ()

section 154 of the Cr.PC at Malad West Police 2 I.T.A. No. 506/Mum/2025 Station, the Assessee was not available and was preoccupied with the said proceedings, as a result of which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The appeal was eventually filed before the Tribunal on 24/01/2025, resulting in a delay of 330 days. 2.1. Having

THEIS PRECISION STEEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 154 of the Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ground of appeal nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee pertains to condonation of delay

THEIS PRECISION STEEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 154 of the Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ground of appeal nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee pertains to condonation of delay

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

7) State of Jharkhand & Ors, vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors, (8) Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, had evolved the following guidelines for condonation of delay: “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the low, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (1) Law of limitation is based upon

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

154 shall stands restored. 7 16.09.2022 Appeal filed in Appeal filed after ITAT against the delay of 4 years order of CIT(A) 6 months and six dated 29.12.2017 days 5. In view of the above, the entire delay in filing of appeal to Hon’ble ITAT submitted as above and it is further requested to your goodself that condonation

KSHIPRA ENTERPROISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. From the records, I noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Whereas, the Ld. AR relied upon

ANANDKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2003-04

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7. As regards the observation of the Assessing Officer that denial of the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on the sale proceeds of the DEPB license, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in another case, cannot be said to be mistake apparent from the record

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

Section 246A(i)(b) of the Act, on the ground that the assessee did not have sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within 30 days on receipt of the assessment order. The learned A.R., referring to the petition filed for condonation of delay along with affidavits of two Chartered Accountants, submitted that the assessee has explained the delay

SHRI KHANDESHWAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

7 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd by any malice, but occasioned by a bona fide misunderstanding of tax obligations. 3.2 The period prescribed for filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is 30 days under Section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section (3) thereof vests a discretionary power in the appellate authority to condone delay, if sufficient

VERTEX SPINNING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 1 and 2

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vertex Spinning Limited 1011, 10Th Floor, Embassy Centre, 207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan:Aabcv5617N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

condone the delay in filing of appeal and matter will be adjudicated on its merits. 1. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company filed its original return on 27-10-2007 declaring total profit of Rs 1,22,67,480/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a detailed questionnaire was issued

AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (AIR 1979 SC 1666), has held that a legal advice tendered by a professional and the litigant acting upon it one way or the other could be a sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay and coupled with the other circumstances and factors

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

condonation of delay has to be treated as attributable to the assessee while determining the eligible interest in terms of section 244A(2)of the Act.In other words,if an assessee is responsible for the delay in the finalisation of the proceedings on the basis of which he becomes entitled to the refund, then the period of delay

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

7) I say that I was again wrongly advised by my tax consultant CA Viral Mehta who continue pressing for rectification of Asst year: 03-04 & 04-05 especially after the ITAT order for Asst Year: 2001- 02 and that my case was now stronger. Thus, I was again advised in May 2016 to file a rectification u/s 154 with

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

7) I say that I was again wrongly advised by my tax consultant CA Viral Mehta who continue pressing for rectification of Asst year: 03-04 & 04-05 especially after the ITAT order for Asst Year: 2001- 02 and that my case was now stronger. Thus, I was again advised in May 2016 to file a rectification u/s 154 with

RAHUL RAMESH EKTARE ,THANE vs. CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

Section 249(3) of the Act to warrant condonation of delay. 3.1 The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that against the intimation u/s 143(1) the raising a demand of Rs. 4,43,510/- (including interest) the assessee had already filed an online response against the outstanding demand seen on the income tax portal explaining that

SHASHWAT FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

154 on 14.08.2023. And the appellant has filed an appeal on 31.08.2023. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) has rejected the appeal and not condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. If the delay was not condoned it would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order. The power given to the authority is not to legalise an injustice