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

273 (SC) It was, held in this case that while determining 'book profits' under section 115J, the AO could not re- compute the profits in the profit and loss account except as provided for in the Explanation. It may also be stated ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. here that the relevant provisions of section

ANISH METALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon‟Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am

condone the delay, if a litigant satisfies the Courts that there was sufficient reason for availing the remedy after the expiry of limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reasons” as provided in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation

SHRI SAMBHAVNATH SWETAMBER JAIN DERASAR TRUST,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), THANE

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

section 143(1) of the Act. 4 M/s. Shri Sambhavnath Swetamber Jain Derasar Trust 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) reached the conclusion that when the assessee trust has failed to furnish the audit report in form No.10B nor he has moved an application for condonation of delay before

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

section 80IB(10) of the Act, in respect of date of commencement and completion of the project has no application to projects undertaken under the scheme of Central or State Govt. Thus, in view of the fact that the project on which the benefit of deduction was claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, was approved under DC regulation

RAJENDRA C. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7376/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

condone the delay, if a litigant satisfies the Courts that there was sufficient reason for availing the remedy after the expiry of limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reasons” as provided in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation

THE TEMPLES CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS AND FUNDS OF THE GOUD SARASWAT BRAHMAN COMMUNITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

273 days (AY 2010-11). The Assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay, supported by a detailed affidavit. The Assessee’s main explanation is an incident of internal mismanagement and a breach of fiduciary duty by the erstwhile management. The Assessee-Trust contends that the former Secretary and certain Trustees were embroiled in financial irregularities and failed

THE TEMPLES CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS AND FUNDS OF THE GOUD SARASWAT BRAHMAN COMMUNITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

273 days (AY 2010-11). The Assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay, supported by a detailed affidavit. The Assessee’s main explanation is an incident of internal mismanagement and a breach of fiduciary duty by the erstwhile management. The Assessee-Trust contends that the former Secretary and certain Trustees were embroiled in financial irregularities and failed

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

delay is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee had declared her income at Rs.7,39,507/- by filing return of income on dated 22.10.2020 for the AY under consideration and during the assessment year under consideration, the Assessee had purchased a property on a consideration of Rs.72

SHRI NAMDEO MOTIRAM MANGAONKAR CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

273 dated 03/06/1980. The purpose of the said circular is to expedite the disposal of applications filed by trusts for condoning the delay, the Board had passed a general order under section

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

SAHAKARI SHIKSHAN VIKAS SAMOOH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) - WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

273 dated 3-6-1980, the CBDT has authorized the jurisdictional CIT/DIT to condone the delay in filing forms such as Form 10 & 10B. Thus, the CIT (A)/Additional CIT (A) have not been empowered u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income- tax Act to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant

SAHAKARI SHIKSHAN VIKAS SAMOOH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS - WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

273 dated 3-6-1980, the CBDT has authorized the jurisdictional CIT/DIT to condone the delay in filing forms such as Form 10 & 10B. Thus, the CIT (A)/Additional CIT (A) have not been empowered u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income- tax Act to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing the CO. 22. Coming to the main appeal filed by the revenue, at the time of hearing, Ld.DR brought to our notice relevant facts of the case and submitted his written submissions vide letter dated 07.07.2022, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below:- “1. Addition of Rs. 10,84,198/- on account

SAVITRIBAI PHULE DATTAK PALAKSUDHARIT YOJNA NIDHI BRIHANMUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. CPC BANGALORE, INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) and where the delay has occurred for reasons beyond the control of the assessees. It may be noted that these circulars in no way dilute the provisions of section 12A(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act.” 6. Undisputedly, return of income for the year under consideration was e-filed on 21.09.2018 without

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened and inserted sub-section (5B) in section 80G with effect from April 1, 2000, which reads as under : "(5B). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of subsection

NA vs. ARI OIL PRODUCTS P. LTD,MUMBAIVS.DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 8665/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 6576/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 8553/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Navsari Oil Products Pvt.Ltd. Ito-Cc 7(1)(3) बनाम C/O Vvf Limited, Plot No.109 Aaykar Bhavan / Vs. Sion (East), Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-1387-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and is a deductible expenditure. Ground No. 3: (i) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO to treat the entire lease rentals of Rs.30,33,600/- included under the head 'Income from Business' to be 'Income from Property' of Rs. 27,00,000/- and 'Income from Other