SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,BHULABHAI DESAI vs. CIT(APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions of law are reproduced below for ready reference:\n“Form of appeal and limitation.\n249. (1) ...\n(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date,\nthat

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions of law are reproduced below for ready reference:\n“Form of appeal and limitation.\n249. (1) ...\n(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date,\nthat

SARNATH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions of law are reproduced below for ready reference:\n\n“Form of appeal and limitation.\n249. (1) ...\n(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date,\nthat

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DESAI ROAD vs. CIT (APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay\n3.1 As per provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the Act, appeal against an\nintimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be presented within 30\ndays of the service of connected demand notice. Section 249(3) provides for\ncondonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied that appellant\nhad sufficient cause

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condone the delay in filing the\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A).\n4. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a company\ndealing in listed and unlisted securities. For your under\nconsideration assessee did not file any return of income and\ntherefore the Ld.AO issued notice under section 148 of the act on\n22/03/2019. The Ld.AR submitted that during

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 the delay on filing the Form 10B for the relevant assessment year under consideration in accordance with CBDT Circular 16/2022 dated 19-07-2022. Copy of is attached herewith for your reference. In this regard, we would like to bring your attention that the delay in filing the Form 10B only for a period of 13 days caused

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The common ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT (A)) ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 erred in dismissing the appeal under section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The common ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT (A)) ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 erred in dismissing the appeal under section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The common ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT (A)) ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 erred in dismissing the appeal under section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The common ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT (A)) ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 erred in dismissing the appeal under section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The common ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT (A)) ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 erred in dismissing the appeal under section 248

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

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

MONTEROSSA PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanmonterossa Premises Co-Operative Vs. Addl/Jcit (A) – 2 Society Limited Ito 27(2)(1), Tower No. 6, 4Th Plot No. 353(6), Monterossa, 90 Floor, Vashi Railway Station Feet Road, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai – East, Mumbai – 400075. 400703. Pan: Aacam3102E (Appellant) (Respondent)

248 is a statutory right granted to the appellant/assessee. The statutory right cannot be denied to an assessee unless there is inordinate delay or gross negligence on the part of the assessee. It is settled law that the rules and procedure is handmade of Monterossa Premises Co-operative Society Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 justice and the adjudicating authorities should

PANKAJ PARASAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Pankaj Parasar Acit, Circle 11(1) 1St Floor, Plot No. 376 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Didee House, 14Th Road Mumbai 400020 Khar (W), Mumbai 400052 Pan – Aaapp9015A Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 248 days in filing this appeal. This appeal is accordingly admitted for consideration and adjudication. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Shri Pankaj Parasar 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: - 3.1 The assessee, Prop. M/s. Mazaa Films & M/s. Mazaa Productions, engaged in the production and direction of advertisement films, feature films

MODERN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

Section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 30th August, 2016, wherein the delay of 119 days was not condoned by the learned CIT (A) holding that the reasons for delay were vague. 05. Thus, against all three appellate orders, assessee is in appeal before us. 06. At the time of hearing, the assessee preferred