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

delay could be condoned. Since the mandatory pre Since the mandatory pre-condition for exercising jurisdiction under section 253(5

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, if a litigant satisfies the Courts that there was sufficient reason for availing the remedy after the expiry of limitation. Such reasoning 10 ITA no.5073/Mum./2017 Reliance Industries Limited should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reasons” as provided in sub-section (5) of section 253

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)

5) of Section 11 of the Act. 6 Fransalian Society 8. Again CBDT vide Circular No.16 of 2022 dated 19/07/2022 has extended the period of delay to condone beyond 365 days upto three years in filing of Form 10B for A.Y.2018-19 after subsequent years, and the powers were given to the Pr. Chief Commissioner and Chief Commissioner to condone

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

condonation of delay under section 253(5) of the Act is not automatic. What constitutes sufficient cause may vary from

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

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

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

WORTHWHILE FUTURE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 253(5) is neither mandatory nor automatic. Unless facts and materials are brought on record to establish that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine and reasonable cause, delay cannot be condoned

WORTHWHILE FUTURE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM. WARD 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 253(5) is neither mandatory nor automatic. Unless facts and materials are brought on record to establish that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine and reasonable cause, delay cannot be condoned

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

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

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

5. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the Rules are very clear. According to her, the respondent/assessee in this case may support the action of the Ld. CIT(A) even if the assessee has not preferred any appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. So according to Ld. CIT DR, in this case, the assessee’s Rule

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

253 and The JCIT vs. Colourman Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat HC)2015 ITL 1036. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law , Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the Finance Bill 2015 has been enacted to further enlarge the scope of the definition of 'Income