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

condone this delay and thus denied the Assessee the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), but the proceedings were transferred to the Addl. /JCIT (A)-2 in accordance with section 246

DAMANI WELFARE AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

delay has not been given to Appellate Authorities, or enshrined in section 246 or 246 A or 253. Other than Section 119(2)(b), there no other provision given to any other appellate authority to entertain such appeal or condone

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (EARLIER REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT 1860 AS ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA CONVERTED INTO COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

delay has not been given to Appellate Authorities, or enshrined in section 246 or 246 A or 253. Other than Section 119(2)(b), there is no other provision given to any other appellate authority to entertain such appeal or condone

SHREE GURUDEV DATTA MANDIR TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee isallowed in above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshree Gurudev Datta Mandir Cit(Exemptions)/Ito Trust Ward 2(3), Datta Mandir Compound, Datta Vs. R. No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumbulla Mandir Road, Vakola Pipeline, Hill, Mtnl Building, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, Pan: Aaats8130R Maharashtra – 400 026

246 days in filing of Form 10B by holding as under: "That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section

SHEETAL LODHA FOUNDATION,MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI vs. DLC-CA-(102)(2), CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

delay has not been given to Appellate Authorities, or enshrined in section 246 or 246 A or 253. Other than Section 119(2)(b), there is no other provision given to any other 4 Sheetal Lodha Foundation appellate authority to entertain such appeal or condone

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed, in the above terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

246 days in filing of Form 108 by holding as under: "That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section

SHRI BHAGWANDAS RAMDASJI CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kanta N D Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Bhagwandas Ito (Exemption)-2(3), Ramdasji Charitable & Mumbai Religious Trust, Ground Floor, Oricon House, 1076, Vs. Dr E Moses Road, Mumbai- 400 018 Pan: Aabts 4907 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

246 days in filing of Form 10B by holding as under: "That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section

SMT LAXMIDEVI SOMANI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

246 days in filing of Form 10B by holding as under: “That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section

ESTATE OF LATE SUNDERLAL C. PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CPC BANGALORE, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Acit-Cpc-Bangalore, Parikh, Income Tax Officer-26(1)(4), बनाम/ Vrindavan, 33, Hatkesh Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Society, C-10, Bkc, Bandra, 5Th N.S. Road, Jvpd, Mumbai-400050 Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400056 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaae1766G "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Ms Neha Paranjape-Ar Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2018

condoning the delay, resulting into confirmation of the order of the AC-CPC, ignoring the factual matrix and not applying correct charge of tax applicable u/s 159 r.w.s 168 and further in not computing the tax in terms of section 168(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel

GALAXY CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

condonation of delay, cannot unilaterally decide the appeals on the merits, more so when the appellant-assessee was not given proper opportunity to contest the matter in the main appeals on the merits. The order of the Tribunal is also not in consonance with section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act. Section 253(5) of the Income

THE NASIK ST. XAVIERS SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2023-24

246 days in filing of Form 10B by holding as under: “That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

delay is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee had declared her income at Rs.7,39,507/- by filing return of income on dated 22.10.2020 for the AY under consideration and during the assessment year under consideration, the Assessee had purchased a property on a consideration of Rs.72

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

246 (Mum), wherein Mahalaxmi Construction Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT in ITA 433/Pn/2007 has been relied upon; iii) ACIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 (Mum) As regards the CIT DR's argument that the decision of the larger Bench in B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) is still good law, we rely

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

246 (Mum), wherein Mahalaxmi Construction Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT in ITA 433/Pn/2007 has been relied upon; iii) ACIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 (Mum) As regards the CIT DR's argument that the decision of the larger Bench in B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) is still good law, we rely

GALAXY COOP HSG SOC LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

condonation of delay,\ncannot unilaterally decide the appeals on the merits, more so\nwhen the appellant-assessee was not given proper opportunity to\ncontest the matter in the main appeals on the merits. The order of\nthe Tribunal is also not in consonance with section 253(5) of the\nIncome-tax Act. Section 253(5) of the Income

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result, the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/MUM/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistica...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together