CAREGIVER SAATHI FOUNDATION,GOREGAON MUMBAI vs. DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU, DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU

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 Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Caregiver Saathi Foundation, Dy. Cit, Cpc 1703, Sienna Tower Wing-B, Lodha Bengluru-560100. Vs. Florenza, Western Express Highway N Ext, To Hub Mall, Goregaon, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaicc 5644 B Appellant Respondent

55 / 20 18-ITA-I] dated 03.01.2020 I] dated 03.01.2020 authorized the Commissioners of Income authorized the Commissioners of Income-tax to admit tax to admit applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form

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

55 / / 20 20 18-ITA-I] 18 I] dated dated 03.01.2020 03.01.2020 authorized authorized the the Commissioners of Income Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications of condonation tax to admit applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 for A Y 2018 of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

condone the belated claim under section 80AC. under section 80AC. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the subject adjustment carried

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee on advice of newly appointed chartered accountant has filed the appeal. Though, the learned Departmental Representative, on the basis of the observations made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with the issue of delay condonation in respect of quantum and penalty appeals which are also part of this group, has submitted

NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2002-03

condone the delay. 9. As regards the decision of our co-ordinate bench in the case of Kunal Surana (supra) relied upon by the learned DR, we find that the said case is distinguishable on facts in as much as in the said case, it has been observed by our co-ordinate bench that the delay in filing the appeal

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 139(1) of the Act. The submission of the assessee that due to technical error in uploading the return on the last date because of which the return got uploaded just after midnight with a delay of two minutes but for that the delay of filing is not intentional, has been rejected by the Assessing Officer observing that

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 139(1) of the Act. The submission of the assessee that due to technical error in uploading the return on the last date because of which the return got uploaded just after midnight with a delay of two minutes but for that the delay of filing is not intentional, has been rejected by the Assessing Officer observing that

IIT INVESTRUST LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 491)(2), , MUMBAI

Accordingly, we declined to\ninterfere in the order passed by the order passed by the CIT(A) and\nsame is sustained. As a result all the Grounds raised by the Assessee\nare dismissed

delay was not condoned, and the appeal was not admitted, leading to its dismissal.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "154", "143(1)", "55

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

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

55 days in filing the\nCross Objections. We have considered the rival submission on\nthe application seeking condonation of aforesaid delay. It was\nsubmitted on behalf of the Assessee that filing of cross\nobjections was necessitated on account of the judgment of the\nHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assessing Officer\n(International Taxation) Vs. Nestle

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

55 days in filing the\nCross Objections. We have considered the rival submission on\nthe application seeking condonation of aforesaid delay. It was\nsubmitted on behalf of the Assessee that filing of cross\nobjections was necessitated on account of the judgment of the\nHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assessing Officer\n(International Taxation) Vs. Nestle

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

55 days in filing the\nCross Objections. We have considered the rival submission on\nthe application seeking condonation of aforesaid delay. It was\nsubmitted on behalf of the Assessee that filing of cross\nobjections was necessitated on account of the judgment of the\nHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assessing Officer\n(International Taxation) Vs. Nestle

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

55 days in filing the\nCross Objections. We have considered the rival submission on\nthe application seeking condonation of aforesaid delay. It was\nsubmitted on behalf of the Assessee that filing of cross\nobjections was necessitated on account of the judgment of the\nHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assessing Officer\n(International Taxation) Vs. Nestle

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

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

condonation of delay of nearly 5 years and 10 months, considering the date of assessment order being 27.03.2014 without appreciating that the appellant received the assessment order only on 23.01.2020. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal on merits- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Income

PARVATIBEN DAMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3181/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt. Parvatiben Damji Shah, The Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ 602, Aashish Apartment, 21(1)(4), V. Tilak Mandir Road, C-10, 6 Th Floor, Vile Parle(East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 057. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaqps2114K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

condonation of delay and affidavit both dated 5th ITA 3181/Mum/2014 4 May, 2014 that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing her appeal before the Tribunal within the time stipulated under the provisions of Section 253(3) of the Act whereby the filing of appeal is delayed by 55

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

condonation of delay and we consider it is appropriate to refer to the notarised affidavit of the assesse as under: “Jayesh Hirji Savla, aged about 55 years an adult Indian Inhabitant, having residential address at 502, New Shangrilla Apartment, LT Cross Road, Opp Vrundas Hotel, Borivali West, Mumbai 400092 do here by state on solemnly affirmation as under

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

condonation of delay and we consider it is appropriate to refer to the notarised affidavit of the assesse as under: “Jayesh Hirji Savla, aged about 55 years an adult Indian Inhabitant, having residential address at 502, New Shangrilla Apartment, LT Cross Road, Opp Vrundas Hotel, Borivali West, Mumbai 400092 do here by state on solemnly affirmation as under

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

condonation of delay and we consider it is appropriate to refer to the notarised affidavit of the assesse as under: “Jayesh Hirji Savla, aged about 55 years an adult Indian Inhabitant, having residential address at 502, New Shangrilla Apartment, LT Cross Road, Opp Vrundas Hotel, Borivali West, Mumbai 400092 do here by state on solemnly affirmation as under