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

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)

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 the delay and decide on merits. Thus

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

6. Vehemently opposing condonation of delay, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee is a habitual defaulter which is evident from the fact that before the Commissioner (Appeals) also quantum as well as penalty appeals were filed belatedly. Further, referring to the affidavits filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal explaining the cause of delay, the learned Departmental

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

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was inordinate delay of 1797 days in filling appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee has not been able to establish “sufficient cause” for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal

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

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was inordinate delay of 1797 days in filling appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee has not been able to establish “sufficient cause” for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal

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

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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

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

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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

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

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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as 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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

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

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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

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

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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

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

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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

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

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

6. Regarding the first question we may notice that Section 253 of the Act pertains to appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Under sub- section (1) of section 253 any assessee aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which includes an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

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

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)

6 Damani Welfare and Cultural Association given to the Pr. Chief Commissioner and Chief Commissioner to condone the delay and decide on merits. Thus, the statute has given this power for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B or any audit report u/s. 119(2)(d) to the CITS/CCITs/PCCITs. If the power has been given to condone the delay

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

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

253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1114 days. The appellant had\nrelied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector,\nLand Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987.\nThere was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the\nsubsequent decisions, namely

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