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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SANGEETA MOTILAL SHAHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(3)(1), VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(3)", "68", "250(4)", "250(6)", "251(1)(a)", "251(1)(h)", "251(2)", "246A" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, due to the assessee's non-prosecution, is sustainable? Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

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)

1. That I am the Appellant in the present appeal and am well conversant with the facts of the case. 2. That an assessment order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed against me on 29.12.2022 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). 3. That as per law, the appeal against the said order was required

U S ROOFS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 V. M/S.U.S.Roofs Ltd., The Ito-10(3), 115/116, Jk Chambers, Mumbai. Sec-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. [Pan: Aaacu 3633 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023

delay caused in filing of appeal stands condoned. 3. Further, it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order ex parte qua assessee. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had been granted ‘4’ opportunities and since, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him, he was pleased to dismiss the grounds raised

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