NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

STATE BANK OF INDIA-ISB BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS-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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

STATE BANK OF INDIA-RBO II THANE WESTERN BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

STATE BANK OF INDIA- NRI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

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

section 201 are invalid and barred by limitation. Condonation of delay Condonation of delay 4. The learned The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

5) of section 11 of the Act. 3. No application for condonation of delay in No application for condonation of delay in filing of Form No. filing of Form No. 9A/10/1 OB/1 OBB shall be entertained beyond three years 9A/10/1 OB/1 OBB shall be entertained beyond three years 9A/10/1 OB/1 OBB shall be entertained beyond three years from

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

4. We have given consideration to the rival submissions. The law We have given consideration to the rival submissions. The law We have given consideration to the rival submissions. The law on condonation of delay is well settled that length of delay is not on condonation of delay is well settled that length of delay is not on condonation

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

4. We have given consideration to the rival submissions. The law We have given consideration to the rival submissions. The law We have given consideration to the rival submissions. The law on condonation of delay is well settled that length of delay is not on condonation of delay is well settled that length of delay is not on condonation

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

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

5: Without prejudice to Ground 4, on the facts and in the Without prejudice to Ground 4, on the facts and in the Without prejudice to Ground 4, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case

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

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

5: Without prejudice to Ground 4, on the facts and in the Without prejudice to Ground 4, on the facts and in the Without prejudice to Ground 4, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant humbly submits circumstances of the case

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

4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of shares as shares as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. PRAYERS. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted

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

5) of section 11 of the Act. of section 11 of the Act. 4. Further, the Pr. Chief Commissioner I Chief Commissioner of 4. Further, the Pr. Chief Commissioner I Chief Commissioner of 4. Further, the Pr. Chief Commissioner I Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, as the case may be, shall preferably dispose the tax, as the case