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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 27-06-2012. 2. First, we dealt with ITA No. 3552/Mum/2010 for the AY 2009-10. At the outset, it is noticed that despite the issuance and service of notices for hearing fixing on 13-02-2017 and 20-03-2017, none attended. The notices were served

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 27-06-2012. 2. First, we dealt with ITA No. 3552/Mum/2010 for the AY 2009-10. At the outset, it is noticed that despite the issuance and service of notices for hearing fixing on 13-02-2017 and 20-03-2017, none attended. The notices were served

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

Condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income- -tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 9A and tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 for Assessment Year 2018 Form No. 10 for Assessment Year 2018- 19 and subsequent years- Reg. subsequent years In exercise of the powers conferre In exercise

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) and a circular vide which powers to condone delay were delegated to CITs. In para 18,19 and 20

SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,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, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of “sufficient cause” is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of Limitation has left the concept of “sufficient cause” delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well

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, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of “sufficient cause” is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of Limitation has left the concept of “sufficient cause” delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well

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, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of “sufficient cause” is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of Limitation has left the concept of “sufficient cause” delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well

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 ()

20,000/- being voluntary contribution to the building being voluntary contribution to the building repairs and amenity fund by member. repairs and amenity fund by member. CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 2. The learned AO erred in 2. The learned AO erred in not following the principles of not following the principles

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 ()

20,000/- being voluntary contribution to the building being voluntary contribution to the building repairs and amenity fund by member. repairs and amenity fund by member. CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 2. The learned AO erred in 2. The learned AO erred in not following the principles of not following the principles

FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(1), 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: 2015-16

20,190/- under section 69 of the Act without appreciating that the payments made towards section 69 of the Act without appreciating that the payments made towards section 69 of the Act without appreciating that the payments made towards the purchase of the said immovable property were through proper banking the purchase of the said immovable property were through proper

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

20,78,513 under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Act) and book profit at Rs 5715,11,93,129 as per section 115JB of the Act. While computing income under normal provisions of the Act, no deduction was claimed u/s 80HHC based on the sun-set provisions contained in ITA no.5073/Mum./2017 Reliance Industries Limited section

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

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

20 May 2022 was received in my junk mail and hence, I have inadvertently lost sight of the same. It was noticed by me only on 21 December 2022 and pursuant to the discussion with the Consultants, I was advised that an appeal ought to be filed against the Order passed by the, NFAC. 4. THAT due to the aforesaid

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)

section I 19(2)(b) of the Act, the CBDT has decided that where the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 has been filed, and the Return of Income has been filed on or before 31 S1 March of the respective assessment years i.e. Assessment Years 20

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 ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 3 of the Limitation Act, (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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

Condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 9A and tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 9A and tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 for Assessment Year 2018 10 for Assessment Year 2018- 19 and subsequent years 19 and subsequent