GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

condonation of delay only) can not make a similar application before Hon'ble Bench. Hence even on this ground, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 6. The current appeal of the assessee is against the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 1443 of the Act, dated 23- 9 Getinge Medical

FRANSALIAN SOCIETY NALLASOPARA,VASAI THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD - 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust

SHRI KHANDESHWAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

section (3) thereof vests a discretionary power in the appellate authority to condone delay, if sufficient cause is demonstrated. For evaluating sufficient cause for condonation of delay, For evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji AIR (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down

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

85% during relevant period) for charitable purpose, but if income charitable purpose, but if income to that extent is not applied to the is not applied to the prescribed percentage, prescribed percentage, then the assessee can accumulate or set the assessee can accumulate or set apart said income for application to such purposes in India subject apart said income

UTTAR BAHRTIIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1797 days. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent

UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1797 days. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent

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

delay in filing of cross-objection stands condoned and the cross- objection is admitted. 9. Grounds of Cross-Objections 9.1 The ground raised in the cross-objection read as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent prays that deduction of Education Cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax ought to have been allowed

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 263\nand holding that the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the\nlearned assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nRevenue.\n2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, amend or substitute all\nor any of the above grounds of appeal.\"\n1\nITA No.4520/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18\nM/s Sai Builders and Developers\n3.\nThe facts

SHASHWAT FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

85% of income and account accumulated or set apart from application to charitable purposes which is less than 15%. Ground No. 5 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (Appeal) has erred in not given any reason for disallowing and making addition of Rs. 23,90,592/-. No opportunity of being heard

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

85,60,980 & Net Tax Liability at Rs.51,63,664. The said return has bee Rs.51,63,664. The said return has been processed by CPC n processed by CPC-ITD, determining Total Income at Rs.2,95,89,490 & Net Tax Liability determining Total Income at Rs.2,95,89,490 & Net Tax Liability determining Total Income at Rs.2

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)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the fact that: The appellant is a charitable trust The Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 143 (1), disallowing the amount applied for charitable purpose Rs. 94,38,907/-. 2 Fancy Rehabilitation Trust, Mumbai Ground No. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

85,34,638/- of various expenditure were made by the AO which stood added to the income of the assessee , thereby income was assessed at Rs. 31,26,573/- as against returned loss of Rs. 54,83,065/- which culminated finally into an assessment order dated 26-12-2003 passed by the u/s 143(3). The AO also initiated penalty

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay be condoned, and the appeal be decided on merits after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. II. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION/APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT: Assessment Year 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the entire

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay be condoned, and the appeal be decided on merits after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. II. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION/APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT: Assessment Year 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the entire

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

85,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee , vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. I.T.A. No. 2118-2123/Mum/2013 & I.T.A. No. 2494-2498/Mum/2013. 3.2. The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

85,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee , vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. I.T.A. No. 2118-2123/Mum/2013 & I.T.A. No. 2494-2498/Mum/2013. 3.2. The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

85,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee , vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. I.T.A. No. 2118-2123/Mum/2013 & I.T.A. No. 2494-2498/Mum/2013. 3.2. The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

85,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee , vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. I.T.A. No. 2118-2123/Mum/2013 & I.T.A. No. 2494-2498/Mum/2013. 3.2. The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed