DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n\n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

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 in is therefore rejected. As a necessary consequence, the quantum appeal stands dismissed in limine as barred by limitation, without entering into or adjudicating upon the merits of the disallowance sustained under section 80G of the Act. PENALTY APPEAL – ITA No. 6498/Mum/2025 11. We now proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee against the order

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 in is therefore rejected. As a necessary consequence, the quantum appeal stands dismissed in limine as barred by limitation, without entering into or adjudicating upon the merits of the disallowance sustained under section 80G of the Act. PENALTY APPEAL – ITA No. 6498/Mum/2025 11. We now proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee against the order

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)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

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

section 270A. Therefore no penalty can be levied d. The appellant contends that the levy of penalty on addition on account of deemed rent u/s 23(1) r.w.s 23(4) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted. Ground of Appeal No.2: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC

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

section 270A. Therefore no penalty can be levied d. The appellant contends that the levy of penalty on addition on account of deemed rent u/s 23(1) r.w.s 23(4) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted. Ground of Appeal No.2: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC

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

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", "Section 2(19)", "Section 80P(4)", "Section 253(3)"], "issues": "1

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

1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal with the reason that “that the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant which could have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delay

SHREE MANGIRISH CO-OPERATIVE HSG LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-42(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condoned the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal. Regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal noted the assessee's argument about a procedural lapse due to management change and the amendment to Section 80AC. Following the precedent of the Ahmedabad Bench, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the claim.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "148A

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 4. Since in both the appeals the assessee has raised similar issues which arise out of the similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience, and are being decided by way of this consolidated order

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

270A of the Act. 3. The assessee filed a common petition for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Act without condoning the delay. However the CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal against the penalty order condoned the delay

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

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

270A of the Act. 3. The assessee filed a common petition for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Act without condoning the delay. However the CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal against the penalty order condoned the delay

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

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT Appeal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 255 days on ground of there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, without application of the mind and without proper reason. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of case

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, filed along with the present appeal, the assessee Kavita Jasjit Singh ITA no.1981/Mum./2023 submitted that there was a search conducted on the assessee and her family and their owned entities on 31/03/2023

DESMOND SAVIO THEODORE FERNANDES,MUMBAI vs. ITO FACELESS ASSESSMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable

270A being appealable before this Tribunal, under section 253(1)(a), is specifically with reference to such orders being passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and that is the limited extent to which general provisions of the Section 246A(1)(q) must make way for the specific provisions of the Section 253(1)(a). The order sought to be impugned

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. \nSr. No. | ITA No. | Assessment \nyear | Appeal by | No. of days \ndelay \n---|---|---|---|---\n1. | 2980/Mum/2024

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1