CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

47 (Bom HC) ii. Mittal Court Premises Co ii. Mittal Court Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. (Bom HC) 320 ITR op. Soc. Ltd. (Bom HC) 320 ITR 414 and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income from Other Sources

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

47 (Bom HC) ii. Mittal Court Premises Co ii. Mittal Court Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. (Bom HC) 320 ITR op. Soc. Ltd. (Bom HC) 320 ITR 414 and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income from Other Sources

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

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

v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection (5) and Explanation 3, an institution or fund which incurs expenditure, during any previous year, which is of a religious nature

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

v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection (5) and Explanation 3, an institution or fund which incurs expenditure, during any previous year, which is of a religious nature

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

v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection (5) and Explanation 3, an institution or fund which incurs expenditure, during any previous year, which is of a religious nature

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

v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection (5) and Explanation 3, an institution or fund which incurs expenditure, during any previous year, which is of a religious nature

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

condone the belated claim under section 80AC. under section 80AC. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the subject adjustment carried

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

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-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. The Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar

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

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-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. The Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

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 ()

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 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal.\nNow the appeal is admitted to be heard.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along\nwith other co-owners were owners of the land and thus\nentered into Development Agreement with M/s Brick Works\nTrading Pvt Ltd regarding the said land and as per the terms

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing of an additional ground is 16 years and no cogent evidence or no explanation has been filed by the assessee to justify the substantial delay of 16 years. In fact

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

V, Netherlands\n15. KPMG Services Pte.Ltd., Singapore Company 2,09,48,526/- 2\n16. KPMG Siddharta Advisory, Indonesia Company 4,11,141/- 2\n17. KPMG, Tanzania Firm 4,47,678/- 1\n18. KPMG United Kingdom Plc United\nCompany 74,17,104/- 2\nKingdom\n19. KPMG, Ireland Firm 1,20,808/- 1\n20. KPMG, Sri Lanka Firm

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

47,88,230/-. The return was selected for scrutiny, and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was issued on 22.09.2019 and duly served upon the assessee.\n3.1 The assessment was thereafter completed under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions and disallowances

BLUE ROSE INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

47,108/- Less: Interest on Savings/ Non-Cooperative Banks Rs. 1,01,407/- Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) Rs. 37,45,701/- Learned AO, after making adjustment of an interest on savings/ non co-operative bank of Rs. 1,01,407/-, disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 37,45,701/- claimed u/s. 80P(2