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

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

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

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

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

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)", "Section 253(5

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 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

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

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

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

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)

253. Other than Section 119(2)(b), there no other provision given to any other appellate authority to entertain such appeal or condone the delay. 8. Once Section 119 of the Act has conferred power upon the CBDT to issue instructions and directions to the Income Tax Authorities as it may deem fit for proper administration of the Act which