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

CHETANA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , 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 () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Chetana, Cit (Exemptions), Survey No. 341, Chetana College, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Government Colony, Bandra East, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400051. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatc 3012 A Appellant Respondent

65 (Delhi)/[2014] 268 CTR 444 (Delhi)[21-12 12-2012], where after considering various decisions had laid after considering various decisions had laid down the principles that down the principles that are to be taken into consideration for condoning such delay. are to be taken into consideration for condoning such delay. are to be taken into consideration for condoning

PREVISION PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(2)(4), MUMUBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

65 days cannot\nbe considered to be inordinate or excessive.\n3.4 Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas\nCharitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and\nfast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay\nand the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the\nCourt should exercise their

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

section 80(5), “where the\ninstitution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior\nto expiry of the period of the provisional approval..” has not been adjudicated.\n13. Further with regard to whether the Tribunal can condone the delay in\nfiling the Form 10AB u/s 80G of the Act, the Ld. Coordinate Bench of\nITAT Surat

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

65,545/ on assets wherein\npurchase bills were not provided:\nOn the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A)\nerred in confirming action of AO of disallowing depreciation in view of\nnon-submission of purchase invoices of Rs.8,01,000/- for financial year\n2015-16 and Rs.2.65,545/- without appreciating the fact that said\nassets

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

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

LIMRASS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\"] dated 30.01.2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the addition\nmade by the AO at Rs.6,58,24,976/- u/s 41(1) of the Act, was confirmed.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in\nthe business

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11(2) & 11(1) and the delayed intimation of accumulation u/s. 11(2) & 11(1) by filing of belated Form 10 may be condoned and admitted and hence the addition of Rs.14,18,78,917/- may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above Form 10 filed along with the additional grounds of appeal, with application for condonation of delay

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11(2) & 11(1) and the delayed intimation of accumulation u/s. 11(2) & 11(1) by filing of belated Form 10 may be condoned and admitted and hence the addition of Rs.14,18,78,917/- may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above Form 10 filed along with the additional grounds of appeal, with application for condonation of delay

RASHTRA TEJ MANCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

section 80(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) in the interest of justice. In that regard the Coordinate Bench of Surat relied the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Section 80AC of the Act.\n\n4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the\nassessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under\nMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No.\nBOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under\nconsideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/-\nwhich

KIRTIKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL BHIMANI (PROPERITOR M/S. SHANTI INDUSTRIES) ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1) on 25.08.2022 via the e-filing portal, clearly stating in the remarks column that the rental income had already been offered under the head “Income from House Property”. b. The appellant received refund for A.Y.2022-23 on 07.12.2022, and subsequently for A.Y.2023-24 on 06.12.2023, which reasonably led to the presumption that the demand issue stood resolved

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding