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

8. On a cumulative consideration of the entire factual matrix, including the specific averments contained in the affidavit, we are unable to discern any “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act for condonation of the inordinate delay of 1023 days. The affidavit itself records that the assessee had consciously and deliberately decided not to pursue

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

8. On a cumulative consideration of the entire factual matrix, including the specific averments contained in the affidavit, we are unable to discern any “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act for condonation of the inordinate delay of 1023 days. The affidavit itself records that the assessee had consciously and deliberately decided not to pursue

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3 & S.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF Facts of the Case 6. The assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B vide order dated 26.04.2021. In the said assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 66,70,000/- under section

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

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

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

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “GROUND I: THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO FOLLOW PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY NOT ALLOWING ANY PERSONAL HEARING 1. The learned CIT(A) failed to follow the principles

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

8. AO failed to consider Form No. 68 under section 270AA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for immunity from imposition penalty under 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

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 in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the appeal back with a direction

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 in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the appeal back with a direction

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

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

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

270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. We have heard Ld.AR as well as the Ld.DR, the Ld.AR at the very outset submitted that the assessee was suffering from cancer and could not appear before

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

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 read with section 274 of the Act were initiated

WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

270A of the Act. Non scrutinizing the revised return of Ground No. 6 (6.1 income & 6.2) Non granting credit for advance tax and Ground No. 7 & 8 TDS Not granting interest under section 244A Ground No.9 on refund due ITA.No. 2461/Mum/2022 –AY 2017-18 3. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring

WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ASSTT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

270A of the Act. Non scrutinizing the revised return of Ground No. 6 (6.1 income & 6.2) Non granting credit for advance tax and Ground No. 7 & 8 TDS Not granting interest under section 244A Ground No.9 on refund due ITA.No. 2461/Mum/2022 –AY 2017-18 3. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring