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

D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Mumbai, dated 15/05/2017 and pertains to AY 2005-06, wherein, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the same was filed beyond the prescribed period

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)

D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The issue to be decided in the above captioned appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for accumulation of funds in term of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short) when Form 10 was filed alongwith revised return of income under section

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

D E R PERSAKTIJITDEY, J.M. This is a group of six appeals, all by the assessee, challenging separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–17, Mumbai, pertaining to assessment years 2007–08, 2008–09 and 2010–11. 2. In this group there are three quantum appeals and rest three appeals arise out of penalty orders passed under section

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

D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the ADDL./JCIT (A)-7, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)”], both dated 24.09.2025, for the assessment years (AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the facts are similar

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

D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the ADDL./JCIT (A)-7, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)”], both dated 24.09.2025, for the assessment years (AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the facts are similar

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

d) & u/s 80P(2)(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

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

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 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

d) Copy of Financials in the case of M/s SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. for the FY 2008-09, relevant to AY 2009-10. (e) a copy of the extract of bank account of M/s Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. with HSBC Bank in respect of receipt of Rs.39,99,99,979, from M/S SKR BPO Services

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

GALAXY COOP HSG SOC LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

d) & u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act, respectively.\nThe said claim of the Assessee was disallowed by the CPC, vide\nintimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said\nintimation/order dated 20.05.2015, by filing first appeal before the\nLd. Commissioner, however, with a delay of 7 years and 6 months\nwhich

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

D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1.1 The revenue assails the order of learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai, {CIT(A)} dated 26/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 on following grounds: - (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the contention of the assessee