GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

2)(b) and held that the CBDT's exercise of such a power is legally correct and in asking the assessee to submit an application back to CBDT, Hon'ble High Court affirmed that power to condone the delay is there with CBDT only. Accordingly, since allowing the appeal in the case would effectively amount to condonation of delay

SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has not admitted to any has not admitted to any delay in filing of the appeal and hence has naturally not given delay in filing of the appeal and hence has naturally not given delay

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, 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 Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

delay was due to technical glitches on the income tax Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on 31/03/2022, Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on for which no proper solution was provided. for which no proper solution was provided. Before us, the assessee Before us, the assessee

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

14 of 33 CBDT circular no. 7 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018(F.No. 197/55/2018- ITA-I) wherein CBDT has relaxed the provisions relating to filing of form no. 10 electronically for AY 2016-17. The said CBDT circular is reproduced hereunder:- “Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2

NEELESH SHYAMSUNDER SABLE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 51(2), 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 Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

delay is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. ontroversy involves an addition of ₹5,36,81,000/- 3. The core controversy involves an addition of ontroversy involves an addition of made by the Assessing Officer

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

delay of 101 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. In the present case it is not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee is a co-operative society and it has received interest income from co-operative banks

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that assessee Society has made investments as per the statutory requirements governing the Society

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

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

condonation of delay u/s. 119(2) (b) of the Act wiII continue with the respective authorities as per the extant Rules and Practice. 14. In view of above circulars, it can be reasonably interpreted that if the return of income by the assessee was filed within the stipulation as provided in section

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC for AY 2021-22, and it had met all conditions specified in Circular, including timely filing of income tax return, selection of taxation under section 115BAA, and electronic filing of Form No. 10 IC before deadline - Whether since assessee had fulfilled all conditions specified in said circular and had filed Form

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC for AY 2021-22, and it had met all conditions specified in Circular, including timely filing of income tax return, selection of taxation under section 115BAA, and electronic filing of Form No. 10 IC before deadline - Whether since assessee had fulfilled all conditions specified in said circular and had filed Form

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

delay is hereby condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: “On facts and circumstances of the case

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

delay is hereby condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: “On facts and circumstances of the case

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

14 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) court of Haryana. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts. The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim “Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium

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

14 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) court of Haryana. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts. The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim “Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium

THE SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant." 14. Thus in our view, the delay should not be condoned simply because the appellant's case