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

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

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

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

section 250(6) of the Act.\n2. CIT(A) Erred in Rejecting Appeal Solely on Condonation Grounds:\nThe learned CIT(A) further erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis\nof the condonation request mentioned in Form No. 35, without issuing any\nnotice for defects, without calling for necessary explanation, and without\naffording the appellant a reasonable opportunity

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

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

condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding

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

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

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

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

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 order

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

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 order

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)

6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on\naccount of its power to legalise injustice on technical\ngrounds but because it is capable of removing injustice\nand is expected to do so.\n6.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration\nare pitted against each other, the cause of substantial\njustice deserves to be preferred, for the other

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

250 of the Act and submissions of the Assessee alongwith the grounds taken before us. For the sake of convenience and better understanding of the case the relevant excerpt Circular No. 16/2022 dated 19.07.2022 of the CBDT has been reproduced herein below -: “In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

250 of the Act and the assessee has filed the Cross Objections. The revenue has filed the following grounds of appeal: 1.` Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding the reopening as bad in law and allowing the appeal of the assessee by observing that mere information that the appellant received