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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

condonation of delay of 285 days in filing the CO for A.Y. 1995-96, the assessee has put forth the following reasons for the said delay: - “9. ...... The appellants received the Department‟s appeal (ITA No. 434/Mum/2011) on 11 October 2012. As per section 253(4

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we thought to dispose these grounds by the present common and consolidated order. 4. The Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before Ld. CIT(A) and drawn our attention to the paragraph number 4 of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, the submissions made

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

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

253(5) of the Act is not automatic. What constitutes sufficient cause may vary from case–to–case and will depend upon the facts involved in a particular case. Therefore, no straight jacket formula can be applied for condonation of delay. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid legal position, we have to examine the facts of the present case and find

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

GIRISH G. DUBE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri C.N. Prasad

section 253(4) of the Act. Therefore, delay in filing the Cross Objection remains unexplained. In view of the above legal and factual discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause for condonation

DIPIKA TANNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negii.T.A. No.3832/M/2013 (Assessment Year: 2003-2004) C.O. No.110/M/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5402/M/2012) (Ay 2009-2010) फनाभ/ Smt. Dipika J. Tanna, Ito-25(3)(2), A1-801, Brizy Corner, Above Mumbai. Vs. Pizza Hut, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abjpt5903D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Ito-25(3)(2), Smt. Dipika J. Tanna, Mumbai. A1-801, Brizy Corner, Above Vs. Pizza Hut, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abjpt5903D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Anil Thakrar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Pant, Sr. Dr

section 253(4) of the Act. Therefore, delay in filing the Cross Objection remains unexplained. In view of the above legal and factual discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause for condonation