MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay in filing the\nForm 10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act and its determination is within the\ndomain and power of the Tribunal because the Tribunal may pass such\norders thereon as it thinks fit(reference section 254

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

Section 246A(i)(b) of the Act, on the ground that the assessee did not have sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within 30 days on receipt of the assessment order. The learned A.R., referring to the petition filed for condonation of delay along with affidavits of two Chartered Accountants, submitted that the assessee has explained the delay

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

condonation of delay has to be treated as attributable to the assessee while determining the eligible interest in terms of section 244A(2)of the Act.In other words,if an assessee is responsible for the delay in the finalisation of the proceedings on the basis of which he becomes entitled to the refund, then the period of delay

LOKUMAL KISHINCHAND CHARITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the assessment order of ld. CIT(A) dated 16.10.2023for A.Y. 2022-23. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the bonafide delay in filing the present

MAHIM UNITED INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

In the result, application for condonation of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These three appeals by same assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) all dated 22.11.2021. Facts on all three years are similar, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal, thus, with the consent of parties all the appeals were clubbed, heard together

MAHIM UNITED INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, application for condonation of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These three appeals by same assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) all dated 22.11.2021. Facts on all three years are similar, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal, thus, with the consent of parties all the appeals were clubbed, heard together

MAHIM UNITED INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, application for condonation of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These three appeals by same assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) all dated 22.11.2021. Facts on all three years are similar, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal, thus, with the consent of parties all the appeals were clubbed, heard together

LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act and initiated penalty p s 254 of the Act and initiated penalty p s 254 of the Act and initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for ct for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, the ld AO ld AO issued show-cause notice

RASHTRA TEJ MANCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay in filing the Form 10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act and its determination is within the domain and power of the Tribunal because the Tribunal may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit(reference section 254

MITTAL PARK CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmittal Park Co-Opp. Housing Society Ltd. 44, Mittal Park, Janardhan Mhatra Marg, Ruiapark, Juhu-Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aaaam2918E ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manoj Mahimkar Respondent By : Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (For Short ‘Nfac’), Delhi Dated 06.04.2022 Under Section 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, [Hon. Cit- (A)] Has Erred On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax- (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, [Hon. CIT- (A)] has erred on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in the law declining to condone the delay

AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee under section 253 of Income Tax Act is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 10th November 2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10, which in turn arises from the Assessment Order passed under section 143 (3) of the Income

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Id. Pr. CIT - 3, Mumbai dated 26.03.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. The appellant prefers the following Appeal against the order dated 26/03/2025 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned