HILLWAY SADHNA CO OP OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay in filing these appeals before us and consider the issue for adjudication on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the bench queried the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A)-41, since the appeal dismissed for the reason that the same is withdrawn by the assessee

MIG CRICKET CLUB,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(E)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Mig Cricket Club, Dcit(E)-2, Mig Colony, Mtnl Building, Mig Cricket Club, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Ramkrishna Paramhans Marg, Mumbai-400026. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatm4779J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025

251 was well within his rights to condone the delay and consider the audit report so filed by the assessee. The Courts and Co-ordinate Benches have also consistently held that filing of such forms is only a procedural requirement and failure to file the audit report along with the return of income cannot be treated as a mandatory requirement

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), THANE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

251 was well within his rights to condone the delay and consider the audit report so filed by the assessee. The Courts and Co-ordinate Benches have also consistently held that filing of such forms is only a procedural requirement 7 and failure to file the audit report along with the return of income cannot be treated as a mandatory

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 250 and 251 which in itself suggests that the delay in filing the appeal has been impliedly condoned as section

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 250 and 251 which in itself suggests that the delay in filing the appeal has been impliedly condoned as section

RESHMA MOHAMMED ASIM ANSARI,BANDRA EAST vs. ITO-23(3)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Ito-23(3)(1), Room No. 402, Mina Centre Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Building, Ahmed Zakaria Nagar, Mumbai-400012. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ardpa 8448 G Appellant Respondent

251 of the Act. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred in deciding per the law, the Ld. NFAC

SHWETA AJAYKUMAR PAHARIA,JAYMALA APARTMENT,MARVE ROAD, MALAD WEST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(3)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 692 days in filing the present appeal. 10. During the course of hearing it was contended that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without examining the merits. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) we find that the CIT(A) has not merely dismissed the appeal on the ground

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

IEI SHAREHOLDING (PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT -1987) TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito Ward 22(2)(1), Iei Shareholding(Personal Piramal Chambers, Development -1987) Trust, Lalbaugh, Ion House, 4Th Floor, Mumbai-400011. Dr. E Moses Road, Near Famous Studio, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011. Pan/Gir No. Aaati0093D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 164(1) of the Act read with proviso (iv), at the slab rates. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A) has erred in holding the delay in filing of the appeal by the Appellant as 'inordinate' and without 'sufficient cause', and dismissing the appeal without any discussion on merits

MOHAMMED FASIHUDDIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(1)(3), MUMBAI, 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 Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Fasihuddin, Income Tax Officer-16(1)(3), 104, L2C, Oakland Park, Yamuna Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nagar, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaapf 1795 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/09/2022

condonation of delay in filing appeal. In view of the detention of the assessee, there is a reasonable cause in filing of the detention of the assessee, there is a reasonable cause in filing of the detention of the assessee, there is a reasonable cause in filing Mohmmed Fasihuddin 3 the appeal with a del the appeal with a delay

TRAVELPORT HOLIDAY (INDIA) PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(30)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2411/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt. Ltd. 316, Woodrow Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 Pan : Aabcv1143P

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

GALAXY CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

251 (Madras) also dealt with the identical issue by holding that having rejected the application on the ground of limitation, the question of examining the merits of the matter would not arise, as it is a superseded exercise.\n13. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that once the Court declined to condone the delay and/or dismissed the appeal

DCIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASIAN INFRA PROJECTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in the same manner

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

251 days in filing of the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the revenue vide condonation petition dated 14/09/2016. It has been submitted that the appellate order for this year formed the basis to provide relief in AYs 2009-10 & 2012-13. While processing the appellate orders for AYs 2009-10 & 2012-13, it was observed that

MERRMAX SOFTWARE AND SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4087/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Merrmax Software & Systems Private Limited C/O. Veeta Legal Services, 7 Raheja Centre, Ground Floor, Fpj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan : Aaecm2026K

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that 5 Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited Vs. ITO-3(2)(2), Mumbai although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

U S ROOFS LTD.,,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Appeals are ordered to be registered and being heard on merits by today itself. 2. The appellant, M/s.U.S.Roofs Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing aforesaid appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated