MR GANESH ANANDRAO INGULKAR ,MUMABI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleganesh Anandrao Ingulkar V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Centralized Processing Center B/502, Shivram Park Income Tax Department Opp. Ashok Kedare Chowk Bengaluru, Karnataka-560500 Tembipada Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai - 400078 Pan: Aappi6881C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, brief facts of the case are assessee filed its return of income on 05.08.2019 declaring total income of ₹.21,56,790/-. Further, assessee filed revised return of income on 16.06.2020 by declaring the same income as declared in the original return of income. However, assessee claimed relief

AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

condone the delay with such delay. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.03.2013 declaring total income of ₹.16,90,830/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the\ncourts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de\nmerits\". The expression “sufficient cause\" employed by the Legislature is\nadequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful\nmanner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,BHULABHAI DESAI vs. CIT(APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the\ncourts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de\nmerits\". The expression “sufficient cause\" employed by the Legislature is\nadequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful\nmanner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

SARNATH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the\ncourts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de\nmerits\". The expression “sufficient cause\" employed by the Legislature is\nadequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful\nmanner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DESAI ROAD vs. CIT (APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes in above terms

section\n51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial\njustice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression\n“sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the\ncourts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of\njustice that being

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

condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. 2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A erred in mechanically calculating the delay as 1,797 days. The Ld. CIT A failed to exclude the period covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Courts directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition Civil No. 3 of 2020 read

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

condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. 2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A erred in mechanically calculating the delay as 1,797 days. The Ld. CIT A failed to exclude the period covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Courts directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition Civil No. 3 of 2020 read

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD.,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

section 249(2) of the Act and accordingly the condonation\nof delay being sought for is not granted. Accordingly, the plea of\ncondonation is rejected.”\n8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020,\norder dated 08.03.2021, was pleased to direct the condonation of delay\non account of covid pandemic and extended limitation period

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC LTD,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU, BENGALURU

section 249(2) of the Act and accordingly the condonation\nof delay being sought for is not granted. Accordingly, the plea of\ncondonation is rejected.\"\n8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020,\norder dated 08.03.2021, was pleased to direct the condonation of delay\non account of covid pandemic and extended limitation period

AMAN CHAMBERS PREMISES CO-OP SOC LTD.,CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI vs. THE ASSITANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

section 249(2) of the Act and accordingly the condonation\nof delay being sought for is not granted. Accordingly, the plea of\ncondonation is rejected.”\n8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020,\norder dated 08.03.2021, was pleased to direct the condonation of delay\non account of covid pandemic and extended limitation period

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

90,99,78,259 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

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

condone this delay both i.e. the meritorious proposition justifying admission of this belated appeal and the reasonable cause which has prevented in filing the appeal belatedly which were not disputed nor found frivolous, thus the delay was not held as deliberate or as a result of negligence and hence ought to have decided on merit as the issue was similar

MR. NARESH TOPANDAS AIDASANI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC,DELHI/ DCIT-27(2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the\ncourts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de\nmerits\". The expression “sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is\nadequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful\nmanner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee. 14. It is clear from the facts on record that the Assessing Officer has not considered the incentives in the nature of drawback u/s. 28(iiic) of the Act while computing the adjusted profit of the business and it was held that

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee. 14. It is clear from the facts on record that the Assessing Officer has not considered the incentives in the nature of drawback u/s. 28(iiic) of the Act while computing the adjusted profit of the business and it was held that

PALMERA CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,N D ROAD MUMBAI. vs. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 2897/MUM/2024, ITA No

90 days,\nthat longer period shall apply.\n3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in\ncomputing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the\nArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial\nCourts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable\nInstruments

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

90,592/-. No opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant. Ground No. 6 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (Appeal) has erred in ignoring the fact that the trust is registered u/s 12A of the income tax act since 23/10/2013. Trust's Registration Number is TR/46320.” 3. In view

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

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:\n\nWe refer to the order dated 11.08.2010 of the Assessing\nOfficer framed under section 154 of the Act determining total\nincome 4,46,37,540 for income-tax assessment year 2008-09.\nIn this connection, we would like to inform you that the appeal\nagainst the aforesaid assessment order