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

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

2), it states that the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of the relevant date. Further, by way of sub section (4) of section 249, no appeal shall be admitted unless prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Sub section (3) of 249 provides for admitting the appeal even if the appeal is filed after the prescribed limitation, if assessee

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

2), it states that the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of the relevant date. Further, by way of sub section (4) of section 249, no appeal shall be admitted unless prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Sub section (3) of 249 provides for admitting the appeal even if the appeal is filed after the prescribed limitation, if assessee

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from Section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

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

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.

2)(b) of the Act authorizes, the Pr. Commissioners of Income Tax (Pr.CsIT) / Commissioners of Income Tax (CsIT) to admit and deal with applications for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A/10/10B/10BB for AY. 2018-19 and subsequent assessment years where there is a delay of upto 365 days. It has been further provided that the Pr. Chief Commissioners

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

2)(b) of the Act authorizes, 6 the Pr. Commissioners of Income Tax (Pr.CsIT) / Commissioners of Income Tax (CsIT) to admit and deal with applications for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A/10/10B/10BB for AY. 2018-19 and subsequent assessment years where there is a delay of upto 365 days. It has been further provided that the Pr. Chief

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

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

2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company 19,19,086/- 2\n3. KPMG Abogados S.L., Spain Company 1,93,758/- 2\n4. KPMG Advisory N.V., Netherlands Company 16,75,488/- 2\n5. KPMG Advisory Services, Nigeria LLP 29,50,726/- 3\n6. KPMG ASESORES S.L., Spain Company 33,73,980/- 2\n7. KPMG Audyt Sp. Zoo, Poland

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

2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company 19,19,086/- 2\n3. KPMG Abogados S.L., Spain Company 1,93,758/- 2\n4. KPMG Advisory N.V., Netherlands Company 16,75,488/- 2\n5. KPMG Advisory Services, Nigeria LLP 29,50,726/- 3\n6. KPMG ASESORES S.L., Spain Company 33,73,980/- 2\n7. KPMG Audyt Sp. Zoo, Poland

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed