SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of shares as shares as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. PRAYERS. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted

VINAYA PRASANNA KULKARNI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

4. We have given o We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival ur thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and examined the record relevant to the assessee’s submissions and examined the record relevant to the assessee’s submissions and examined the record relevant to the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. Section 249

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

4, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits that in case the above claim is not that in case the above claim is not allowed as deduction under

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

4, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits that in case the above claim is not that in case the above claim is not allowed as deduction under

FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT LTD,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1) (1), AAYEKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit 4(1)(1), Ratnam Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 38/39, Sector 19A, Vs. Mumbai-400001. Maharashtra-400703. Pan No. Aaacf 0661 K Appellant Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act emp the Ld. CIT(A) to condone ndone the delay if he is satisfied that assessee satisfied that assessee First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd First Global 3 had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the had sufficient cause for not presenting

VINIT VIJAY KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, MUMBAI (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vinit Vijay Kumar, Acit, Central Circle-13, (Now 35 Shreyas, 180 Madam Cama Dcit, Circle 17(1), Mumbai), Vs. Road, Nariman Point, G Block Bkc, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020. Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacpv 9310 Q Appellant Respondent

Section 249(3) of the Act, the first appellate authority may on "good and sufficient reasons" can admit an appeal after the expiry on "good and sufficient reasons" can admit an appeal after the expiry on "good and sufficient reasons" can admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Here in the present case, the appellant

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

249(3) for filing appeal beyond the prescribed time limit and hence the delay in filing appeal is not condoned. Consequently the appeal is not admitted.” 8. After considering the facts of the present case, we find that the moot question to be adjudicated is with respect to condonation of delay. Broadly, we are of the view, that the Courts

SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

4 and the same is reproduced below: 2. As mentioned above, the appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) dated 27.02.2013, served on the same date, has been filed on 20.02.2023 as against the limitation date of 27.03.2013. This shows that the delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions of section 249

THE SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

4 and the same is reproduced below: 2. As mentioned above, the appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) dated 27.02.2013, served on the same date, has been filed on 20.02.2023 as against the limitation date of 27.03.2013. This shows that the delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions of section 249

THE SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

4 and the same is reproduced below: 2. As mentioned above, the appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) dated 27.02.2013, served on the same date, has been filed on 20.02.2023 as against the limitation date of 27.03.2013. This shows that the delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions of section 249

SHREE SWAMY SAMARTH PRASSANA OSHIWARA (E) UNITS CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

section 144, the assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for delay were not disclosed correctly and therefore could not delay were not disclosed correctly and therefore could not delay were not disclosed correctly and therefore could

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

249(2)(b) of\nthe Act, appeal against an intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be\npresented within 30 days of the service of connected demand notice. Section\n249(3) provides for condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions

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

249(2)(b) of\nthe Act, appeal against an intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be\npresented within 30 days of the service of connected demand notice. Section\n249(3) provides for condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions

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

249(2)(b) of\nthe Act, appeal against an intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be\npresented within 30 days of the service of connected demand notice. Section\n249(3) provides for condonation of delay if the appellate authority is satisfied\nthat appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal on time. The\nrelevant provisions

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

4 of the Learned CIT\nOrder state that there was four-year appeal filed by appellant in fact four-year\nappeal was dismissed out of six-year appeal filed by appellant. The remaining\n assessment years there was no disallowance of deduction ünder section 80P\n(2)(d). The copy of order enclosed for assessment year 2017-18 enclosed

MANECKJI RUSTOMJI PATEL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALURU, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Maneckji Rustomji Patel Trust, Income Tax Cpc, Bangaluru, 5, 2Nd Floor, Oval View, 150 M. Karve Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Ward Vs. Road, Churchgate 25(2)(1), Mumbai-400020. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East. Pan No. Aadtm 1078 R Appellant Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to the delay if he satisfied that assessee had sufficient cause for not the delay if he satisfied that assessee had sufficient cause for not the delay if he satisfied that assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the limitation period. For evaluating presenting the appeal

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249