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 ()

Section 119(2)(b), the circular vide which CBDT delegated the authority to condone delay to jurisdictional CITs and that such a delegation was subjected to the conditions given in the circular. 11. In para 23 and 24

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

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

24-06- -2025 vide which appeal of the appellant has been 2025 vide which appeal of the appellant has been dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: - "We consider it appropriate

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

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

24-06- -2025 vide which appeal of the appellant has been 2025 vide which appeal of the appellant has been dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: - "We consider it appropriate

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:-

delay in filing Form No. 10 electronically. The assessee submitted that only ground for denial of deduction u/s 11(2) of the 1961 Act was non filing of Form No. 10 electronically in time before expiry of time allowed u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessee claimed that Section 11(2) of the 1961 Act which provide

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

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay, if so advised. of delay, if so advised. Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 5.1 In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for In the present case, there is no dispute that the return

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

2. During hearing of this appeal, Ld. DR, Shri M. Swamy, contended that this appeal is barred by limitation by 24 days, therefore, the delay may be condoned. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri C. Naresh, opposed the condonation of delay by contending that the Revenue is expected to explain the delay of each

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

24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return of such income

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

2)(b) to condone delay that occurred in filing Form 10 ID - Competent Authority rejected application - Whether since a series of Circulars namely Circular Nos. 6/2022, 19/2023 and recently 17/2024 had been issued by CBDT which goes to show that there has been a problem in large number of cases which assessee has faced in respect of filing Form

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

2)(b) to condone delay that occurred in filing Form 10 ID - Competent Authority rejected application - Whether since a series of Circulars namely Circular Nos. 6/2022, 19/2023 and recently 17/2024 had been issued by CBDT which goes to show that there has been a problem in large number of cases which assessee has faced in respect of filing Form

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

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

M/S. P.A.ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BEGALURU

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

PRADMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

ODEX INDIA SOLUTIONS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

condoned.\n3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section