DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

78,259 Add Disallowed u/s 68 (as discussed in para 7 above) 32,21,48,679 Total Income - 123,21,26,938 6.3 Submissions of the appellant in respect of ground number 3 & 4: Submissions of the appellant dated 28.03.2016 is reproduced below: ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. "In the light of the aforesaid

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

78 to 80 of the paper book-1, the\nprovisional registration was granted o 18.01.2022 from AY 2022-23 to\nAY 2024-25. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the deponent\nMadhusudan Rajagopalan dated 1st April 2025, the provisional\nregistration granted vide Form 10AC was to lapse on 31st March 2024\nand the application was required for final

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions

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

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

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

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

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

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

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

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

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

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

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

In the result, the six appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

section of the I.T. Act,\n1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to\nrectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment\nYear 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AО-\nCIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for\ncondonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)—\nTribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

TIRTH GLOBAL FOUNDATION,CHEMBUR vs. ITO 27(3)(1) MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Tirth Global Foundation V/S. Income Tax Officer–27(3)(1), 601, Glass View Society, Plot बनाम Vashi Railway Station, No. 13, Pestom Sagar, Road No. Mumbai – 400 703, 3, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Maharashtra Chembur, Mumbai – 400089, Mumbai, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadtt5346D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

78 days. In this regard, the trustees in the condonation application stated the same reasons as in para 3 above. In view of our decision in para 4 above, we condone the delay. 11. According to the impugned order, the assessee had filed Form 10AB on 30.11.2024 and requested for approval u/s 80G of the Act, under clause

TIRTH GLOBAL FOUNDATION,CHEMBUR vs. ITO 27(3)(1) MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Tirth Global Foundation V/S. Income Tax Officer–27(3)(1), 601, Glass View Society, Plot बनाम Vashi Railway Station, No. 13, Pestom Sagar, Road No. Mumbai – 400 703, 3, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Maharashtra Chembur, Mumbai – 400089, Mumbai, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadtt5346D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

78 days. In this regard, the trustees in the condonation application stated the same reasons as in para 3 above. In view of our decision in para 4 above, we condone the delay. 11. According to the impugned order, the assessee had filed Form 10AB on 30.11.2024 and requested for approval u/s 80G of the Act, under clause

ANAND GOVIND PARAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1St Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri Cps Sector, Sanpada, Vs. Ito Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, Bkc Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051

Condon the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). Along with filing appeal and in reply to defection notice issued by CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected without taking into consideration of my application at all. As if I have not reply at all. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) issued notice of deficiency i.e. and asked for submission of application

DR RABI NARAYAN SAHOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

78 days in filing the present appeal. Assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. As per the contents of the delay condonation petition 2 Dr. Rabi Narayan Sahoo and averments made in the affidavit, the mother of the assessee fell ill which prompted the assessee to go to his native place to attend