AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 6.5 The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) (277 ITR 1) has condoned the delay of 180 days when the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Apex Court. Furthermore, the Revenue has not filed any counter

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

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 6.5 The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) (277 ITR 1) has condoned the delay of 180 days when the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Apex Court. Furthermore, the Revenue has not filed any counter

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

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 6.5 The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) (277 ITR 1) has condoned the delay of 180 days when the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Apex Court. Furthermore, the Revenue has not filed any counter

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

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 6.5 The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) (277 ITR 1) has condoned the delay of 180 days when the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Apex Court. Furthermore, the Revenue has not filed any counter

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 ()

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 6.2 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

delay or technical lapse in filing the prescribed form. Circular No. 07/2023 dated 31.05.2023 – lays down monetary limits and authority-wise powers for condonation under section 119(2)(b). Importantly, it reiterates that claims relating to Form 10-IC can be condoned by the appropriate authority. 16. Reliance in this regard is also being placed upon the following decisions

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

delay or technical lapse in filing the prescribed form. Circular No. 07/2023 dated 31.05.2023 – lays down monetary limits and authority-wise powers for condonation under section 119(2)(b). Importantly, it reiterates that claims relating to Form 10-IC can be condoned by the appropriate authority. 16. Reliance in this regard is also being placed upon the following decisions

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 ()

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 2.6. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment

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 ()

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 2.6 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment

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

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 4.6 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment

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)

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001)\n118 Taxman 622 (Mad).\n3.7 We also refer to the decision of Coordinate Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)\nreported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the\nappeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

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

168\nCTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad).\n3.5 I also refer to the decision of Coordinate Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)\nreported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the\nappeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

168 CCTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad).\n3.5 I also refer to the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)\nreported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the\nappeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of\nthe

MIG CRICKET CLUB,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(E)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Mig Cricket Club, Dcit(E)-2, Mig Colony, Mtnl Building, Mig Cricket Club, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Ramkrishna Paramhans Marg, Mumbai-400026. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatm4779J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025

168 days in filing the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and perusing the facts placed on record, we find that there was reasonable 2 cause for the delay in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing

MUSIC BROADCAST LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

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

168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 4.4 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

168 taxmann.com 514 (Kolkata). We also find that Hon'ble Madras High Court in Svasti Microfinance (P.) Ltd. Vs CBDT (2024) 164 taxmann.com 229 (Madras) also held that where Form 10DA was signed within stipulated date and filed on extended date for filing return of income, it was appropriate case for condoning the delay in filing Form 10DA. We find

ESTATE OF LATE SUNDERLAL C. PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CPC BANGALORE, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Acit-Cpc-Bangalore, Parikh, Income Tax Officer-26(1)(4), बनाम/ Vrindavan, 33, Hatkesh Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Society, C-10, Bkc, Bandra, 5Th N.S. Road, Jvpd, Mumbai-400050 Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400056 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaae1766G "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Ms Neha Paranjape-Ar Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2018

condoning the delay, resulting into confirmation of the order of the AC-CPC, ignoring the factual matrix and not applying correct charge of tax applicable u/s 159 r.w.s 168 and further in not computing the tax in terms of section

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal.\nHowever, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A)\nrejected the objections raised against the initiation of reassessment\nproceedings under section 148 of the Act and sustained the\nreassessment as well as the addition made therein.\n6. Before us, the appeal has been filed in the name of the Estate