ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

251). He, accordingly, made addition of Rs. 2,82,51,259/- 3.6. The AO, while computing the book profits u/s 115JB, made the addition of Rs. 2,82,51,260/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A as per P&L A/c. 3.7. In course of assessment proceedings the AO further noticed that in respect of dividend income from mutual funds

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

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

1) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the issue would be resolved by the rectification order allowing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of Act and therefore, did not prefer an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-41. However, once the assessee came to know that

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

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

251 (SC) It was held in this case that while computing the income of a company under section 115J, the AO has only power to examine, whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, has the limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural Produce Market Committee

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural Produce Market Committee

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

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

1 to 4 raised by the Revenue; Cross Objection No. 1\nraised by the Assessee; and Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the\nAssessee pertain to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer\nunder Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n5. The Assessee claimed deduction for the following fee\npaid/payable to the non-residents aggregating

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the AO on receiving the information from the Exemption Wing, of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai, to the effect that no TDS was deducted by the banks on the interest payments made on fixed deposits to Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), verified the traces system and other departmental sources

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the AO on receiving the information from the Exemption Wing, of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai, to the effect that no TDS was deducted by the banks on the interest payments made on fixed deposits to Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), verified the traces system and other departmental sources

INFINITY RETAIL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(TDS)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of retail trading of electronic goods(CROMA). The asssessee has taken various leave and license premises from M/s R. Mall Developers Pvt.Ltd in R.N.Mall, Ghatkopar. There was survey u/sec 133A

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

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

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

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

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

JYOTI PRAKASH DESHMUKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), KALYAN

In the result ground no. 5

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountantjyoti Prakash Deshmukh F003, Shiv Shanti Complex, Manjarli, Badlapur West, Maharashtra – 421 301, Pan No.: Agspd2705K. ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Kalyan Mohini Plaza Building, Wayle Nagar, Khadkpada, Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421 301 ..... Respondent

delay condonation application. 3 Jyoti Prakash Deshmukh The appellant has not filed any appeal before high court and or Supreme Court of India. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, vary, delete and/or withdraw any of the above ground of appeal. The Appellant prays that: 1. The Appeal be admitted and allowed fully. 2. The Impugned order

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