ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) was accordingly imposed at 100% of the tax sought Arti Shailen Topiwala 7 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 to be evaded, quantified at to be evaded, quantified at ₹58,48,075/-, vide order dated , vide order dated 28.09.2016. 6.1 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) was accordingly imposed at 100% of the tax sought Arti Shailen Topiwala 7 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 to be evaded, quantified at to be evaded, quantified at ₹58,48,075/-, vide order dated , vide order dated 28.09.2016. 6.1 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved

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

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 ()

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of Chapter VI- A under the heading "C". Deductions in respect of certain incomes" other than the provisions of section 80JJAA; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable

THE SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

condone the delay in filing appeal and oblige.” 6 Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2.2 As per Form no. 35, the appeal is delayed for 3615 days. The intimation under section

SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

condone the delay in filing appeal and oblige.” 6 Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2.2 As per Form no. 35, the appeal is delayed for 3615 days. The intimation under section

THE SONMRUG CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDER ROAD vs. CIT(APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

condone the delay in filing appeal and oblige.” 6 Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2.2 As per Form no. 35, the appeal is delayed for 3615 days. The intimation under section

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

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 ()

35 by the offi jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of condonation of delay if so required condonation of delay if so required. 3.6 It has also been submitted before us by the Ld. Counsel

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 ()

35 by the offi jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of condonation of delay if so required condonation of delay if so required. 3.6 It has also been submitted before us by the Ld. Counsel

VINIT VIJAY KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, MUMBAI (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI), 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 () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vinit Vijay Kumar, Acit, Central Circle-13, (Now 35 Shreyas, 180 Madam Cama Dcit, Circle 17(1), Mumbai), Vs. Road, Nariman Point, G Block Bkc, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020. Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacpv 9310 Q Appellant Respondent

35 Shreyas, 180 Madam Cama DCIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai), Vs. Road, Nariman Point, G Block BKC, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020. Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AACPV 9310 Q Appellant Respondent : Mr. Dharmesh Shah Assessee by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Revenue by : 27/06/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

VINAYA PRASANNA KULKARNI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), 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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

35 that the order was received on 07.03.2024. The appellant also stated in its request petition for delay that the AO appellant also stated in its request petition for delay that the AO appellant also stated in its request petition for delay that the AO might obtain the mail id from bank and sent the notices to the might obtain

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

section 250(6) of the Act.\n2. CIT(A) Erred in Rejecting Appeal Solely on Condonation Grounds:\nThe learned CIT(A) further erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis\nof the condonation request mentioned in Form No. 35, without issuing any\nnotice for defects, without calling for necessary explanation, and without\naffording the appellant a reasonable opportunity

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR IT PARK THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

delay or technical lapse in filing the prescribed form. Circular No. 07/2023 dated 31.05.2023 – lays down monetary limits and authority-wise powers for condonation under section 119(2)(b). Importantly, it reiterates that claims relating to Form 10-IC can be condoned by the appropriate authority. 16. Reliance in this regard is also being placed upon the following decisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR, IT PARK, THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

delay or technical lapse in filing the prescribed form. Circular No. 07/2023 dated 31.05.2023 – lays down monetary limits and authority-wise powers for condonation under section 119(2)(b). Importantly, it reiterates that claims relating to Form 10-IC can be condoned by the appropriate authority. 16. Reliance in this regard is also being placed upon the following decisions

INDIA LAND AND PROPERTIES LIMITED (SINCE MERGED WITH EQUINOX INDIA DEVELOPMENTS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA BULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

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

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

delay to be condoned, as the assessee has a good case on merits. In support he placed reliance on following decisions: 10. The Applicant relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case 167 ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji. 3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the condonation petition. He submitted that the assessee

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

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

Section 5. 5.12 The Hon'ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert