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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/ JCIT (A)- 2 for the assessment year 2012-13. The following grounds are reproduced below: “Ground of Appeal: We have already filed an affidavit explaining reason for late filing of an appeal request for Condonation of Delay

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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/ JCIT (A)- 2 for the assessment year 2012-13. The following grounds are reproduced below: “Ground of Appeal: We have already filed an affidavit explaining reason for late filing of an appeal request for Condonation of Delay

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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/ JCIT (A)- 2 for the assessment year 2012-13. The following grounds are reproduced below: “Ground of Appeal: We have already filed an affidavit explaining reason for late filing of an appeal request for Condonation of Delay

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 144", "Section 115BBE", "Section 147", "Section 142(1)", "Section 143(2)", "Section 148", "Section 249", "Section 270AA", "Section 201", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal was condoned

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

section 250 dated 01.11.2023 it was informed to me that HARKISHN AHARthe delay in filing it was informed to me that HARKISHN AHARthe delay in filing it was informed to me that HARKISHN AHARthe delay in filing the appeal was condoned

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 and\n2020-21 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nbeing barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the\ndelay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 and\n2020-21 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nbeing barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the\ndelay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 and\n2020-21 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nbeing barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the\ndelay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

250 of the Act. It was further submitted by Ld. AR that although AO has passed the appeal effect order but has not given tax calculation sheet & not considered request for manual Form 10IC. Ld. AR further drawn our attention to the fact that: - For AY 2021-22-retuen filed – tax paid @25% - not opted for section 115BAA

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

250 of the Act. It was further submitted by Ld. AR that although AO has passed the appeal effect order but has not given tax calculation sheet & not considered request for manual Form 10IC. Ld. AR further drawn our attention to the fact that: - For AY 2021-22-retuen filed – tax paid @25% - not opted for section 115BAA

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

250 of the Income tax Act by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center [CIT(A)] for 2 ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Hitesh Suresh Jadhav the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of INR 23,83,645 made under Section

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the\nAct”] for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the appeal of the assessee is dismissed\nbeing barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the\ndelay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for\ncondonation of delay.\n2. The brief facts

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act, (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also\nstands dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable

UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the ADDL./JCIT (A)-7, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)”], both dated 24.09.2025, for the assessment years (AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the facts are similar and the grounds are identical, with consent of both parties, the appeals were clubbed and heard together and a common

UTTAR BAHRTIIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the ADDL./JCIT (A)-7, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)”], both dated 24.09.2025, for the assessment years (AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the facts are similar and the grounds are identical, with consent of both parties, the appeals were clubbed and heard together and a common

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

condonation of delay applications. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory and should not be denied on technical grounds without sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the death of the accountant, constituted sufficient cause for the delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section

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

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B” 4. The Assessee being aggrieved with this order preferred the present appeal before us. We have gone through the order passed by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act, order of the Addl. /JCIT (A)-2under section 250