NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

2 is reproduced as under: Arti Shailen Topiwala 15 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 8.3. In the this form No. 35 In the this form No. 35 , order challenged has been , order challenged has been mentioned as u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 (sic). The date of of 2017 has been inadvertently inadvertently inadvertently mentioned mentioned

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

2 is reproduced as under: Arti Shailen Topiwala 15 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 8.3. In the this form No. 35 In the this form No. 35 , order challenged has been , order challenged has been mentioned as u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 (sic). The date of of 2017 has been inadvertently inadvertently inadvertently mentioned mentioned

CAREGIVER SAATHI FOUNDATION,GOREGAON MUMBAI vs. DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU, DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU

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 Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Caregiver Saathi Foundation, Dy. Cit, Cpc 1703, Sienna Tower Wing-B, Lodha Bengluru-560100. Vs. Florenza, Western Express Highway N Ext, To Hub Mall, Goregaon, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaicc 5644 B Appellant Respondent

2 No. 15, 16 & No. 17 on 19th July 2020, whereby it 020, whereby it authorized the Commissioners of Income authorized the Commissioners of Income-tax to admit tax to admit applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A, Form applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A, Form applications for condonation of delay in filing Form

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

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 in filing

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of I.T. Act, 1961, as it has undertaken activities in the nature of business and services in relation to business industry of gems and jewellery and persons engaged into the same. Hence its purpose does not constitute charitable purpose and thereby income earned by it cannot be said to be derived for charitable purpose and therefore, expenditure

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

15, 16 & No. 17 on 19th July 2020 16 & No. 17 on 19th July 2020, whereby it authorized the whereby it authorized the Commissioners of Income Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications tax to admit applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A of delay in filing Form 9A, Form 10, Form No. 10B & 10BB for AY Form

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)

15,256/- under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. We have heard both the sides on the issue and have perused the material on record. 5. The appeal preferred by the Assessee is delayed by 101 days. In the application seeking condonation

FRANSALIAN SOCIETY NALLASOPARA,VASAI THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD - 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust

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