MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by its Director. In the affidavit, it is stated that after the learned CIT(A) partly allowed relief by deleting the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets and sustained only the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of Rs. 9,90,000/-, the assessee, considering the quantum of tax involved and with

MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by its Director. In the affidavit, it is stated that after the learned CIT(A) partly allowed relief by deleting the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets and sustained only the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of Rs. 9,90,000/-, the assessee, considering the quantum of tax involved and with

MANSUKHLAL MOHANLAL MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

section 270A of the Act. Since both matters arise from the same penalty proceedings and were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common consolidated order. Condonation of Delay

BIANCA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the explained circumstances, citing a similar decision for a prior assessment year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 80P(2)(d)", "Section 249(3)", "Section 250", "Section 143(3)", "Section 144B", "Section 234B", "Section 274", "Section 270A

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 14,50,038/- by the AO. 6. In this regard Ld. AR reiterated

SIROYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the order of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 3. The assessee filed a common petition for condonation

SIROYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the order of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 3. The assessee filed a common petition for condonation

BHAVESH GHANSHYAM ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTL TAX)-1,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

condoned the delay with a direction to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. Against this order of ITAT, Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) vide M.A. No. 126/Mum/2019 under section 254(2) of the Act. In its M.A., Department raised the ground that order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable

DEEPAK GOPINATH BIRJE,GOREGAON EAST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI,

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Deepak Gopinathbirje Commissioner Of Income Tax A/604, Lakshachandi Heights, Off. Gen. Vs Nfac, Delhi A.K. Vaidya Marg, Gokuldham, Mumbai – 400063. [Pan: Ahcpk6464F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 270A of the Income Tax Act) and rejected application without proper reason as even condition laid down u/s 270AA(2) are satisfied. 9. The Honourable ITAT may please be considered the filing of the appeal before Honourable ITAT delayed 172 days and delay may please be condoned

KAVITA JASJIT SINGH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), CIR-3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 270A of the Act, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The present appeal is barred by 28 days. In its affidavit seeking condonation of delay

MOHAMMED SHARIF NIZAMUDDIN DALVI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

270A of Act before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and not file any appeals against the orders passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 271AAC of the Act. Therefore, I plead before Your Honours to kindly condone the delay

MOHAMMED SHARIF NIZAMUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

270A of Act before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and not file any appeals against the orders passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 271AAC of the Act. Therefore, I plead before Your Honours to kindly condone the delay

NITCO PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

270A (9) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made on account of interest income Rs. 25492 which was due to oversight not added in computation of total income and agreed by the appellant vide reply dated 17.01.2021. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under

SANDHYA SITAL SANGTANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansandhya Sital Sangtani Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, Ito 28(3)(1), Vashi, Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aadpk5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar-Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 By Nfac Delhi Mumbai [In Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”], Vide This Impugned Order By Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2018- 19, Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On 2 Sandhya Sital Sangtani

condone the delay stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and dismissed the appeal without deciding the same on merit. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “1. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

condonation of delay in depositing the employee contribution towards PF/ESIC even after the due datementioned in the statue, therefore it cannot be said to bea case of underreporting of income on account of misreporting of income and penalty u/s 270A is not warranted at all and imposing of 200% penalty has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is therefore argued

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

condonation of delay in depositing the employee contribution towards PF/ESIC even after the due datementioned in the statue, therefore it cannot be said to bea case of underreporting of income on account of misreporting of income and penalty u/s 270A is not warranted at all and imposing of 200% penalty has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is therefore argued

SHRI ROBERT PAUL RAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

delay is condoned accordingly. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in the instant case the assessment order dated 16.04.2021 was passed under section 143(3) of the Act, whereby the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.25,11,980/- and penalty proceedings under section 270A

NEMINATH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 42(1)(3)

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

delay of 311 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the AO under section 270A of the Act. The CIT(A) did not condone

NEMINATH DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO , 42(1)(3)

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

delay of 311 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the AO under section 270A of the Act. The CIT(A) did not condone