ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

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)

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR IT PARK THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

161, H.No. Ashar IT Park, A/2, Pelhar, Vasai Thane. East, Vasai-Virar PAN – AAICM6942N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 17.09.2025 / 13.10.2025 Date of 13.10.2025 Pronouncement ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee challenging

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR, IT PARK, THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

161, H.No. Ashar IT Park, A/2, Pelhar, Vasai Thane. East, Vasai-Virar PAN – AAICM6942N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 17.09.2025 / 13.10.2025 Date of 13.10.2025 Pronouncement ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee challenging

LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

161 taxmann. Com 588 (Orissa).\nHe submitted that, sub section 4 of section 12AB widened the scope of violations\nspecified under sub section 5.\n3. 4. The Ld.DR thus vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted that\nunless and until the Ld.CIT(E) is not satisfied about the objects of the\ntrust/institutions and the genuineness of its activities, registration

M/S. LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

161 taxmann. Com 588 (Orissa).\nHe submitted that, sub section 4 of section 12AB widened the scope of violations\nspecified under sub section 5.\n3.4.\nThe Ld.DR thus vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted that\nunless and until the Ld.CIT(E) is not satisfied about the objects of the\ntrust/institutions and the genuineness of its activities, registration u/s.\n12AB

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

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the assessment order dated 08/01/2025 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice of demand under Section 156 dated 08/01/2025, served on 08/01/2025, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 1. Details of the Applicant: Name: Hemchand C. Patil 5 Hemchand

LOKUMAL KISHINCHAND CHARITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

161,  ITO Vs. P K Kirshnan Educational Trust (2024) 207 ITD 7. 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the plea of condonation by delay submits that there is inordinate delay in filing appeal. The assessee has not explained the delay in proper way. The explanation of assessee for condoning the delay is nothing