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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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

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

3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

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)

253. Other than Section 119(2)(b), there is no other provision given to any other appellate authority to entertain such appeal or condone the delay. 10. Once Section 119 of the Act has conferred power upon the CBDT to issue instructions and directions were given to the Income Tax Authorities as it may deem fit for proper administration

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

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

253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1797 days. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent decisions

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

253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1797 days. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent decisions

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT4(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

3) mandates that an appeal shall be mandates that an appeal shall be filed within the prescribed period. Section filed within the prescribed period. Section 253(5) 253(5) empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal after expiry of limitation only if it is Tribunal to admit an appeal after expiry of limitati Tribunal to admit an appeal after expiry

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

condoning delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "144B", "250", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay of 1114 days in filing

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone delay. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and did not offer proper explanation or cogent evidence for the additions.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 68", "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 250", "Section 253(3

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

Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Supreme Court Appeals to Whether, where appellant, a Government department, filed appeal with a delay of 427 days and there was no proper explanation offered by Department for delay except mentioning of various dates, it was to be concluded that Department had miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient

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

BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito-Mum-W(443)(1), 411, Kewal Indl. Estate, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Karve, Road, New Marine Mumbai-400013. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaapz 0864 D Appellant Respondent

253(5) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. The may condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. The may condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. The expression “sufficient cause” is to be construed liberally