GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 119(2)(b) and held that the CBDT's exercise of such a power is legally correct and in asking the assessee to submit an application back to CBDT, Hon'ble High Court affirmed that power to condone the delay is there with CBDT only. Accordingly, since allowing the appeal in the case would effectively amount to condonation

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

28 along with other documents and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred i 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

28 along with other documents and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred i 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

28 Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if the explanation is found to be concocted or demonstrates thorough negligence in prosecuting the cause, then, it. would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. On similar facts the Hon'ble Ii Al, Mumbai in the case of Prashant Project Ltd Vs DCIT 37 taxmann.com 137 have

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2018 and submitted as under: - 2) “That I am working as a Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private Limited. Whereas, Mr. Nilesh Mehta is my senior and he is designated as a Senior Accountant. 3) That in case of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2018 and submitted as under: - 2) “That I am working as a Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private Limited. Whereas, Mr. Nilesh Mehta is my senior and he is designated as a Senior Accountant. 3) That in case of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

28 In the matter of condonation of delay and, lapses, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with." 9 M/s. National Welfare Foundation 5.14 From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. 2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A materially erred in law by calculating the delay as 1,296 days. The Assessment Order was passed on 08.02.2021, and the normal limitation period expired in March 2021, ITA No.7651/MUM/2025/AY 2018-19 & ITA No.7652/M/2025/AY 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya

UTTAR BAHRTIIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. 2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A materially erred in law by calculating the delay as 1,296 days. The Assessment Order was passed on 08.02.2021, and the normal limitation period expired in March 2021, ITA No.7651/MUM/2025/AY 2018-19 & ITA No.7652/M/2025/AY 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee. 14. It is clear from the facts on record that the Assessing Officer has not considered the incentives in the nature of drawback u/s. 28(iiic) of the Act while computing the adjusted profit of the business and it was held that

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee. 14. It is clear from the facts on record that the Assessing Officer has not considered the incentives in the nature of drawback u/s. 28(iiic) of the Act while computing the adjusted profit of the business and it was held that

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

condonation of delay only on the basis of quantum of delay involved in each appeal irrespective of the fact that the explanation of the assessee explaining the cause of delay remains the same in all these appeals. That being the case, in our view, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in dismissing assessee’s appeal on the ground ofdelay

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 147 of the Act the A.O. has first to satisfy the conditions provided in the first proviso to section 147 of the Act, which in the present case, in our opinion, have not been satisfied. We find that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact qua sale of shares in Viraj

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

delay in filing of cross-objection stands condoned and the cross- objection is admitted. 9. Grounds of Cross-Objections 9.1 The ground raised in the cross-objection read as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent prays that deduction of Education Cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax ought to have been allowed