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)

c)]. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the amended provisions of section 11(2)(a) of the Act held that the appellant has not fulfilled the pre-condition to file the requisite report within the prescribed due date mentioned u/s. 13(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) at paragraph 5.4.3 also held that the appellant has informed

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

C) No.3 of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, decisions in cases of; Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471 SC); and Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust Vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITA No.5673/M/2025 dated 26.11.2025. In view of the above, the Ld. AR requested that the delay may be condoned

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

C) No.3 of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, decisions in cases of; Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471 SC); and Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust Vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITA No.5673/M/2025 dated 26.11.2025. In view of the above, the Ld. AR requested that the delay may be condoned

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

c –“Date of service or communication of the order – “It was mentioned as 19.01.2018”. The revenue having accepted the date of service of the CIT(A) order has challenged by appeal before the Honble Tribunal and therefore the explanations and reasons for delay should be subsequent to this date and to any prior period. 8. Further the Ld.DR submitted that

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

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

C. Beaumonde, Ward- 2(4)), Marathe Marg, Mumbai- 400020 Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AACCW 8528L Appellant by : Shri Nirav Shah, Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned appeals by the assessee arise

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

C. Beaumonde, Ward- 2(4)), Marathe Marg, Mumbai- 400020 Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AACCW 8528L Appellant by : Shri Nirav Shah, Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned appeals by the assessee arise

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (EARLIER REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT 1860 AS ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA CONVERTED INTO COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

c) The power to condone the delay has not been given to Appellate Authorities, or enshrined in section 246 or 246 A or 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. d) Once Section 119 of the Act has conferred power upon

JANSEVA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSHTHA MARYADIT,MAHIM vs. ITO 22(1)(6), LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

253(5) of the Act, the assessee has to justify the delay in filing the appeal by way of application supported by the affidavit. While examining the issue of the condonation of the delay, the Tribunal is required to examine the acceptability of the explanation of the ‘sufficient cause’ submitted by the assessee. The law on condonation of delay

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) That delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and that there is has been a minor delay, due to the time taken for selecting and appointing an Authorized Representative. 9) That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay of three\ndays in filing the cross objection and admit the same for\nadjudication.\n4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee had filed\nreturn of income on 31.10.2005 declaring total income at\nRs.43,80,32,246/- under the normal provisions of the Act and\nRs.1,98,56,14,437/- u/s 115JB

GALAXY CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

c) of the Act, respectively. The said claim of the Assessee was disallowed by the CPC, vide intimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said intimation/order dated 20.05.2015, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, with a delay of 7 years and 6 months which was declined

VIJAY MORU MHATRE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THANE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

condone the delay in filing the impugned appeal. 4. Fact in brief is that in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act the assessee has shown income from house property of Rs.4,00,137/-. Thereafter a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee

SHWETA AJAYKUMAR PAHARIA,JAYMALA APARTMENT,MARVE ROAD, MALAD WEST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(3)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shweta Ajaykumar Paharia 202, Jaymala Apartment, Marve Road, Malad West, Mumbai - 400064. Maharashtra. [PAN:AETPP1200Q] .…………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(3)(1), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Mr. Ashutosh Patare For the Respondent/Department

MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

c. avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for longer periods Madhuri Sunil Zode 3 (Supreme Court in para 52 in Checkmate Services Private Ltd v. CIT). 7. Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of employees' contributions to EPF and ESIC is unjustified in view of the country-wide lockdown

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHREM ROADWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-Cc-5(4) Vs. Shrem Roadways R. No. 436, Private Limited, 4Thfloor,Kautilya Bhavan, 1101, Viraj Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, W.E. Highway, Bandra (East), Mumbai- Andheri Kurla Road, 400 051 Andheri (East)M Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaycs1239C (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

section 253 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 before the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. It is submitted that the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional; the appellant is apologetic for the same. 6. The applicant states that the approval of the competent authority dated 29.05.2025 was received directing to file the appeal immediately. 7. Accordingly

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

253(2) of the Act. As the present\nappeal was filed on 12.05.2023, the same is time barred by 119\ndays.\n6. The Applicant submits that the delay in filing the present\nappeal is not because of any malafide intention on the part of the\nApplicant or tax consultant, but due to the circumstances beyond\nthe control of the Applicant