ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

Section, the first Appellate Authority may on good and sufficient reason for the delay shown by the appellant, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the cause for delayed appeal should be "sufficient", "correct", "genuine" and "convincing one". Here is the case where there is no sufficient and genuine reason for filing appeal after

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

72 ITR 395 (SC)}, the assessee did not explain the delay for part of the period. 5.6 While distinguishing all these decisions, Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Anand Kumar Jain v. ITO {ITA No.4192/Mum/2012 dated 20/08/2019} wherein the appeal was filed after a delay of 420 days. In the said case, the issue

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

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,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-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-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 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

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

72,720, including\ninterest under section 244A. Our returned income was\naccepted without any modifications.\n\n11. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated\n31.03.2017 under section 148 of the Act and our case\nwas re-opened and the Assessing Officer passed an\norder dated 30.11.2017 under section 143(3) r.w.s.147\nof the Act and determined the total

BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(1), 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 Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito-Mum-W(443)(1), 411, Kewal Indl. Estate, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Karve, Road, New Marine Mumbai-400013. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaapz 0864 D Appellant Respondent

72,40,746/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received specific . Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received specific . Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received specific information regarding cash deposits aggregating to ₹ ₹25,56,500/- in information regarding cash deposits aggregating to the assessee’s bank account during the period of demonetisation. bank account during the period of demonetisation. bank account during the period

SUBHA HARIHARAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Subha Hariharan Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 4 B 503/504, Ward 35(3)(4), Dosti Elite Tower -B Mumbai Vs. Next To Sion Telephone Exchange Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 (Pan: Acmph5705R) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocate Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071531320(1), Dated 24.12.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 35(3)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 24/12/2024 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity To The Petitioner To Represent Its Case.

condone delay is discretionary, but the discretion either way should be judicially exercised. Adwani & Co. (JB) Ltd. vs. CIT [(1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC)]. In the context of Limitation Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Ac- quisition vs. Khatiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC)] has observed that the expression 'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to enable

FANCY REHABILITATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhfancyrehabilitationtrust, Vs. I T O (Exem), Ward 2(3), Cumballa Hill,Mtnl Te Sewri Cross Road, Near Building, Pedderroad, Bdd Chawl No. 9, Drgopalrao D Marg, Sewri (W), Mumbai–400026. Mumbai-400015. Pan/Gir No. Aaatf0598C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 143(1) of the 3 Fancy Rehabilitation Trust, Mumbai Act with the disallowance of expenses of Rs,94,38,907/- applied for the objects of the trust and the assessed income determined at Rs.97,61,630/- vide order dated 18-05-2020. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas

MITTAL PARK CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (A), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmittal Park Co-Opp. Housing Society Ltd. 44, Mittal Park, Janardhan Mhatra Marg, Ruiapark, Juhu-Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aaaam2918E ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manoj Mahimkar Respondent By : Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (For Short ‘Nfac’), Delhi Dated 06.04.2022 Under Section 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, [Hon. Cit- (A)] Has Erred On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

72,470/-. As per section 249(2) the due date for filing of appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) was 13.04.2014. However assessee filed the appeal only on 29.03.2019 after a period of 1810 days of delay. We have gone through the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the submissions of assessee along with affidavit before

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

72,547/- paid by the society on 04-04-2013 for the assessment year under consideration. 5. The Appellant craves a leave to add alter and/or modify any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.” ITA No. 4795, 4796 & 4801/Mum/2025 AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 “1. On the facts