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)

condone the delay has not been given to Appellate Authorities, or enshrined in section 246 or 246 A or 253. Other than Section 119(2

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

2. During hearing of this appeal, Ld. DR, Shri M. Swamy, contended that this appeal is barred by limitation by 24 days, therefore, the delay may be condoned. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri C. Naresh, opposed the condonation of delay by contending that the Revenue is expected to explain the delay of each

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

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

253, 259, 260A, etc. Based on, the authoritative pronouncement from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of land acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs [167 ITR 471 SC] , it is an admitted position that the words "sufficient cause" appearing in sub-section (3) of section 249 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

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

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 was declined

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

253(5), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

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

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

2) by the other party, may, A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing of an additional ground is 16 years and no cogent evidence or no explanation has been filed by the assessee to justify the substantial delay of 16 years. In fact