SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has not admitted to any has not admitted to any delay in filing of the appeal and hence has naturally not given delay in filing of the appeal and hence has naturally not given delay

SHA HURGOWAN ANANDJI DESAI CHARITIES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC , BENGULURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

section 12A(1)(b) of the Act was 07.10.2022 the assessee has e-filed the said Form No. 10B on 07.11.2022 and filed the said Form No. 10B on 07.11.2022 and filed the said Form No. 10B on 07.11.2022 and thus , there was a , there was a delay of 31 days in filing such form delay of 31 days

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

31,832 under section 234C of the IT Act. under section 234C of the IT Act. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234C The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234C The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234C of the IT Act ought to be deleted. of the IT Act ought

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

31,832 under section 234C of the IT Act. under section 234C of the IT Act. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234C The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234C The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234C of the IT Act ought to be deleted. of the IT Act ought

FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT LTD,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1) (1), AAYEKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit 4(1)(1), Ratnam Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 38/39, Sector 19A, Vs. Mumbai-400001. Maharashtra-400703. Pan No. Aaacf 0661 K Appellant Respondent

31,107/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd First Global 2 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

31-03-2015. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-7(2)(3), Mumbai for the 2009-10 vide order dated 26-12-2011 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by ITO Ward-7(2)(3) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

31-03-2015. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-7(2)(3), Mumbai for the 2009-10 vide order dated 26-12-2011 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by ITO Ward-7(2)(3) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated

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 ()

delay, but of recognition of a validly exercised statutory option on admitted facts. 6.5.2. Section 119(2)(b) is an enabling provision which empowers the Board to mitigate hardship in cases where a claim could not be made within the prescribed time. It does not operate as a fetter on the appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section

FRANSALIAN SOCIETY NALLASOPARA,VASAI THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD - 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

section I 19(2)(b) of the Act, the CBDT has decided that where the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 has been filed, and the Return of Income has been filed on or before 31

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

31- -10-2001. 7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non 7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non 7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non- compliance of twin conditions under section

MINAKSHI SINGH,MEERUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6648/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12

31 Green Paradise, A to Z Ward 35(2)(3), Colony, Modipuram, Mumbai Roorkee Road, Pratyakshakar Meerut-250110 Bhavan, C-12, PAN: BKMPS3632K Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. Dipanshu Agrawal (Virtually) i/b Shri. Sandeep Jain Respondent by Shri. Sajit Nair, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 ORDER

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

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 High Court - Appeal to (Condonation of delay) An order was passed in favour of assessee by Tribunal - Same was received by revenue on 1-12-2005 Appeal against same was to be filed by revenue not later than 30-3-2006 - However, it ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco

UMMEED FOUNDATION,AL SHAKREEN APT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PMT BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Ummeed Foundation, Cit(E), Pune, Room No. 204, A1 Shakreen Apt, 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. Waf Acomplex Chs, H-104, Office, Pmt Building Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, City Commercial Complex, Shankar Convent High School, Thane, Sheth Road, Swargate, Kausa B.O., Maharashtra-400612. Pune-411037. Pan No. Aaatu 4914 H Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB. The said legal position further gets fortified by the fact that the CBDT on multiple position further gets fortified by the fact that the CBDT on multiple position further gets fortified by the fact that the CBDT on multiple occasions had extended the time limit in filing the occasions

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD.,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of\nlimitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court\nor tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.\n9. The present appeal pertains to the A.Y. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nand the relevant assessment order dated

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC LTD,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of\nlimitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court\nor tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.\n9. The present appeal pertains to the A.Y. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nand the relevant assessment order dated

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC LTD.,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASSITANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of\nlimitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court\nor tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.\n9. The present appeal pertains to the A.Y. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nand the relevant assessment order dated

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

condoned.\n3. Further, Ld. CIT(E) vide impugned order dated 20.02.2025 has\ndismissed the application on the ground of delay as well as on the\nground that the objectives of the assessee as per clause 3(B)(2), 3(B)(13),\n3(B)(26), 3(B)(27) and 3(B)(31) are in violation of Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

31 March 2019) has also lapsed and hence, the subject proceedings has also lapsed and hence, the subject proceedings has also lapsed and hence, the subject proceedings under section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. under section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. under section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

31 March 2019) has also lapsed and hence, the subject proceedings has also lapsed and hence, the subject proceedings has also lapsed and hence, the subject proceedings under section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. under section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. under section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay