ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 246A(i)(b) of the Act, on the ground that the assessee

MR. NARESH TOPANDAS AIDASANI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC,DELHI/ DCIT-27(2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

delay, though involving some negligence on the part of the staff, was not mala fide and constituted a 'sufficient cause' for condonation, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "250", "249(3)", "246A

ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

delay of 3111 days in filing an appeal by assessee before learned CIT(A) which was more than 8 years beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) can be condoned. Chapter XX-A of the 1961 Act vide Section 246A

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 246A of the Income of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. The Hon’ble High Court further held that

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. The Hon’ble High Court further held that

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. The Hon’ble High Court further held that

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

SMT. HIRABEN DHANJI VALJI VELANI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by\nthe Appellant are allowed while Ground No

delay in filing Form 10B was condoned, the exemption under Section 11 of the Act could no longer be denied.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "246A

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condone the delay and direct the Ld. CIT(A) and take these appeals on record for hearing, subject to compliance of other requirements of law, discussed hereinafter. 10. Filing separate appeal for each remittance: 10.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that for every remittances there should be separate appeal. We are not able to appreciate as to what

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condone the delay and direct the Ld. CIT(A) and take these appeals on record for hearing, subject to compliance of other requirements of law, discussed hereinafter. 10. Filing separate appeal for each remittance: 10.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that for every remittances there should be separate appeal. We are not able to appreciate as to what

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condone the delay and direct the Ld. CIT(A) and take these appeals on record for hearing, subject to compliance of other requirements of law, discussed hereinafter. 10. Filing separate appeal for each remittance: 10.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that for every remittances there should be separate appeal. We are not able to appreciate as to what

IATA BSP INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1),

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condone the delay and direct the Ld. CIT(A) and take these appeals on record for hearing, subject to compliance of other requirements of law, discussed hereinafter. 10. Filing separate appeal for each remittance: 10.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that for every remittances there should be separate appeal. We are not able to appreciate as to what

HILLWAY SADHNA CO OP OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay in filing these appeals before us and consider the issue for adjudication on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the bench queried the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A)-41, since the appeal dismissed for the reason that the same is withdrawn by the assessee

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 246A of the Act. The fresh\nappeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted\nand adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall be condoned

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 246A of the Act. The fresh\nappeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted\nand adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall be condoned

TRAVELPORT HOLIDAY (INDIA) PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(30)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2411/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt. Ltd. 316, Woodrow Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 Pan : Aabcv1143P

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

MERRMAX SOFTWARE AND SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4087/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Merrmax Software & Systems Private Limited C/O. Veeta Legal Services, 7 Raheja Centre, Ground Floor, Fpj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan : Aaecm2026K

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that 5 Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited Vs. ITO-3(2)(2), Mumbai although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded

ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": ["143(3)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "246A", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "249", "5", "5", "271(1)(b)", "144"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned