KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

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

D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee against two separate orders pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020 passed by ITA No.3015 & 3075/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2019-2020 the first appellate authority. Since identical grounds were raised in all the three appeals, the same were heard together, and are, therefore, being disposed

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) That delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and that there is has been a minor delay, due to the time taken for selecting and appointing an Authorized Representative. 9) That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal

FRANSALIAN SOCIETY NALLASOPARA,VASAI THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD - 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The issue to be decided in the above captioned appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for accumulation of funds in term of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short) when Form 10 was filed alongwith revised return of income under section

BIANCA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the explained circumstances, citing a similar decision for a prior assessment year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 80P(2)(d)", "Section 249(3)", "Section 250", "Section 143(3)", "Section 144B", "Section 234B", "Section 274", "Section 270A", "Section 2(19)", "Section 80P(4)", "Section 253(3)"], "issues": "1

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

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

D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 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

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

D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 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

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

d) & u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act, respectively. The said claim of the Assessee was disallowed by the CPC, vide intimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said intimation/order dated 20.05.2015, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, with a delay of 7 years and 6 months which

DAMANI WELFARE AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

1). The power to condone such kind of delay has been provided u/s.119 (2)(b). The CBDT vide Circular dated 03/01/2020 has directed that, where there is a delay up to 365 days in filing Form 10B for A.Y.2018-19 or for any subsequent years, the Commissioner of Income Tax is obliged to admit such application for condonation of delay u/s.119

GALAXY COOP HSG SOC LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

d) & u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act, respectively.\nThe said claim of the Assessee was disallowed by the CPC, vide\nintimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said\nintimation/order dated 20.05.2015, by filing first appeal before the\nLd. Commissioner, however, with a delay of 7 years and 6 months\nwhich

BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

d) in in in appellant's appellant's appellant's case case case which which which is is is passed passed passed in in in contravention to first pro contravention to first proviso to sub section 1 of section 149 of the viso to sub section 1 of section 149 of the Act which bars the reopening of assessment