THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

220(2) of the Act. The Appellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and submits that the same be deleted.\n3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay and the contents of application for condonation of delay reads as under:\na) The Order under Section

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

220(2) of the Act. The\nAppellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and\nsubmits that the same be deleted.\n3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee\nfiled an application for condonation of delay and the contents\nof application for condonation of delay reads as under:\na) The Order under Section

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 220(2) of the Act. The Appellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and submits that the same be deleted. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai 3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 220(2) of the Act. The Appellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and submits that the same be deleted. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai 3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 220(2) of the Act. The Appellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and submits that the same be deleted. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai 3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 220(2) of the Act. The Appellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and submits that the same be deleted. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai 3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 220(2) of the Act. The Appellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and submits that the same be deleted. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai 3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 220(2) of the Act. The Appellant denies its liability to the levy of such interest and submits that the same be deleted. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai 3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation

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 5. 5.12 The Hon'ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert

ANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

2) of the Act and decide on merit. 3. The Pr. Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, as the case may be, while entertaining such applications for condonation of delay in filing form No. 9A and Form No. 10, shall satisfy themselves that the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such Form within the stipulated time. In respect

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M B PATIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , MUMBAI

delay of 19 days is condoned.\n4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:-\n“1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in\nrejecting the books of accounts and making an addition

M/S M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 19 days is condoned.\n4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:-\n“1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in\nrejecting the books of accounts and making an addition

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. \nSr. No. | ITA No. | Assessment \nyear | Appeal by | No. of days \ndelay \n---|---|---|---|---\n1. | 2980/Mum/2024

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication