SAGAR PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCITEY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shir Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesagar Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(1) 327, Sagar Premises, Narshi Natha Street Kautilya Bhavan Kharek Bazar, Masjid (W), Mumbai - 400009 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aamas0482M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning the delay and found that the assessee has reasons for filing the appeal with the delay. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe from the record that CPC has disallowed deduction of ₹.3,32,988/- claimed by the assessee in its return of income. The first disallowance is against the deduction of ₹.2,82,988/- claimed

ELECTRONFAB ENGINEERING PVT LTD,SEEPZ SEZ MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's\nreport in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it\nwas held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when\nquestion of disallowance arises during course of assessment proceedings. In the instant case,\nthe

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. M/S ACE PLASTICS , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

delay is condoned and appeal is ordered to be registered. 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the issues at hand are : assessee is into the business of manufacturing of plastic containers, bottles, caps etc., filed return by declaring its income at Rs.39,62,080/- and also claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Income

SHYAMALA VASUDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and for decision on merits. 3 I.T.A. No.6824 /Mum/2014 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities, facts and circumstances of the case and also considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is noted that substantial amount of tax payable as per return was already

DR. PRABHA ATRE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

condoning the delay of filing of audit report in Form-10B, CPC disallowed the claim of expenditure incurred for the charitable purposes. Assessee has failed to follow the procedural guidelines to avail the benefit of exemption u/s.11 of the Act and thus he upheld the disallowance of expenditure incurred for the charitable purposes amounting to Rs.19

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone delay, ignoring binding judicial precedents holding that procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive rights, particularly where noncompliance was caused by system generated technical failures of the Department's own portal. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to consider that the CBDT itself acknowledged widespread technical glitches in the new e-filing portal during AY 2021-22, which had prompted

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone delay, ignoring binding judicial precedents holding that procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive rights, particularly where noncompliance was caused by system generated technical failures of the Department's own portal. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to consider that the CBDT itself acknowledged widespread technical glitches in the new e-filing portal during AY 2021-22, which had prompted

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone delay, ignoring binding judicial precedents holding that procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive rights, particularly where noncompliance was caused by system generated technical failures of the Department's own portal. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to consider that the CBDT itself acknowledged widespread technical glitches in the new e-filing portal during AY 2021-22, which had prompted