JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), 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: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

25,840/- after adjusting the after adjusting the TDS refund of Rs. 1,05,613/ TDS refund of Rs. 1,05,613/- against the Appellant: against the Appellant: 1. A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/ A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/- under section 11(1 )(a) of the under section

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section unexplained cash credit Rs.8,12,16,818/- c) Disallowance of bonafide depreciation Rs.1,19,08,429/- d) Ad-hoc @25% disallowance of expenses Rs.4,70,54,434/-” 6. In this case, there is a delay of 499 days and CIT(A) has given the same reasoning as in a quantum appeal in Para 3.6 to 3.9 which reads

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section unexplained cash credit Rs.8,12,16,818/- c) Disallowance of bonafide depreciation Rs.1,19,08,429/- d) Ad-hoc @25% disallowance of expenses Rs.4,70,54,434/-” 6. In this case, there is a delay of 499 days and CIT(A) has given the same reasoning as in a quantum appeal in Para 3.6 to 3.9 which reads

CAREGIVER SAATHI FOUNDATION,GOREGAON MUMBAI vs. DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU, DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU

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 Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Caregiver Saathi Foundation, Dy. Cit, Cpc 1703, Sienna Tower Wing-B, Lodha Bengluru-560100. Vs. Florenza, Western Express Highway N Ext, To Hub Mall, Goregaon, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaicc 5644 B Appellant Respondent

section 11(1) of the IT Act. The appellant ITA No. 4002/MUM/2024 3 Caregiver Saathi Foundation Caregiver Saathi Foundation filed return of income along with audit report in for filed return of income along with audit report in for filed return of income along with audit report in form 10B on same day i.e.28/03/2023. 10B on same day i.e.28/03/2023

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

25- "That being the position and having regard to the mandate of section 119(2)(b), we feel that even at this stage, petitioner may approach CBDT under the aforesaid provision seeking a special order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai to condone the delay

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

25. In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” ” 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submi Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR IT PARK THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 115BAA which was clear from computation of income, CO. 242/Mum/2025. assessee could not be deprived of lower rate of tax and delay in filing Form 10-IC ought to have been condoned - Held, yes [Para 25

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR, IT PARK, THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 115BAA which was clear from computation of income, CO. 242/Mum/2025. assessee could not be deprived of lower rate of tax and delay in filing Form 10-IC ought to have been condoned - Held, yes [Para 25

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we thought to dispose these grounds by the present common and consolidated order. 4. The Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before Ld. CIT(A) and drawn our attention to the paragraph number 4 of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, the submissions made

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

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

25(2)(1), Mumbai-400020. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East. PAN NO. AADTM 1078 R Appellant Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Parikh Assessee by : Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DR Revenue by : 02/01/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 13/01/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. The degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, court's view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in the institution

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

condone the belated claim under section 80AC. under section 80AC. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the subject adjustment carried

UMMEED FOUNDATION,AL SHAKREEN APT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PMT BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Ummeed Foundation, Cit(E), Pune, Room No. 204, A1 Shakreen Apt, 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. Waf Acomplex Chs, H-104, Office, Pmt Building Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, City Commercial Complex, Shankar Convent High School, Thane, Sheth Road, Swargate, Kausa B.O., Maharashtra-400612. Pune-411037. Pan No. Aaatu 4914 H Appellant Respondent

section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) extended the tax Act, 1961 (the Act) extended the due date for filin due date for filing Form No. 10A to 31.08.2021 by Circular No. 31.08.2021 by Circular No. 12/2021 dated 25 .06.2021 1 dated 25 .06.2021, to 31.03.2022 by Circular No. , to 31.03.2022 by Circular No. 16/2021 dated

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

25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), required to file a return under sub-section (4A) or sub-section (4B) or sub-section (4C) or sub-section (4D) of section 139, be in 8 Aadivasi Welfare Foundation Form No. ITR-7 and be verified in the manner indicated therein; Provided that where an assessee is required to furnish

CHETANA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , 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 () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Chetana, Cit (Exemptions), Survey No. 341, Chetana College, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Government Colony, Bandra East, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400051. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatc 3012 A Appellant Respondent

25. In terms of clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 10(23C) of the Act, the assessee section (5) of Section 10(23C) of the Act, the assessee section (5) of Section 10(23C) of the Act, the assessee was required to submit an application for reg was required to submit an application

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

25. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeals of the assessee condoned the delay for assessment year 2008–09 and 2010–11 accepting the explanation of the assessee, whereas, he refused to condone the delay of 506 daysin filing the appeal for assessment year 2007–08. As regards the dismissal of assessee’s 22 M/s. Nexgenix (India