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 (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

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 (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

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD.,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of\nlimitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court\nor tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.\n9. The present appeal pertains to the A.Y. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nand the relevant assessment order dated

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC LTD,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of\nlimitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court\nor tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.\n9. The present appeal pertains to the A.Y. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nand the relevant assessment order dated

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC LTD.,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASSITANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of\nlimitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court\nor tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.\n9. The present appeal pertains to the A.Y. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nand the relevant assessment order dated

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

248 is a statutory right granted to the\nappellant/assessee. The statutory right cannot be denied to an assessee\nunless there is inordinate delay or gross negligence on the part of the\nassessee. It is settled law that the rules and procedure is handmade of\njustice and the adjudicating authorities should not deny a statutory right\nof appeal on technical grounds

PALMERA CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,N D ROAD MUMBAI. vs. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 2897/MUM/2024, ITA No

condoning delays, especially when sufficient cause is shown and the delay is explained, and that the period of delay should not be the sole determining factor.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "249(3)", "249(2)", "80P", "154", "143(1)", "248

PALMERA CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,N D ROAD MUMBAI. vs. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 2897/MUM/2024, ITA No

Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of\nlimitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court\nor tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.\"\n12.The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal shows that\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has adopted a hyper-technical approach while

SWANASHILP CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, JAIPUR, MUMBAI

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

condoning the delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "249 of the Income Tax Act", "143(1)", "80P(2)(d)", "248