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,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-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-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

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

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

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

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

condoned. 3. So far as, the issue of grant interest u/s 244A of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2001-02 & 2002-03, vide order dated 31/08/2015 in ITA Nos.6817, 6818, 6823 & 6824/Mum /2012

M/S N. G. GROUP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(2)(, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

condone the delay in filing of the appeal of 485 days. 010. Coming the facts of the case, assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of developing and building of residential and commercial premises. It filed its return of income on 30th September 2009 declaring nil income. Thereafter, assessment order under Section

MONTEROSSA PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanmonterossa Premises Co-Operative Vs. Addl/Jcit (A) – 2 Society Limited Ito 27(2)(1), Tower No. 6, 4Th Plot No. 353(6), Monterossa, 90 Floor, Vashi Railway Station Feet Road, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai – East, Mumbai – 400075. 400703. Pan: Aacam3102E (Appellant) (Respondent)

90 Floor, Vashi Railway Station Feet Road, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai – East, Mumbai – 400075. 400703. PAN: AACAM3102E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. Vilas Utekar Department Represented by : Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha – Sr. AR. Date of conclusion of Hearing : 30.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal

JAICO PUBLISHING HOUSE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

90, read with section 90A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and ride 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Double Taxation Relief - Where agreement exists (Foreign tax credit) Assessment year 2018- 19-Assessee claimed foreign tax credit under section 90/90A Assessing Officer disallowed claim, on ground that assessee had not filed Form No. 67 along with return Assessee filed

ACCESS DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.600/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Office No. 15, Floor- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mezzanine, Laxmidas Mumbai-400020. Khimji Market, 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vitthalwadi, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0551C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2366 Days [I.E, Six (6) Years & 05 Months] In Filing Of This Appeal Before This Tribunal. 3. First Of All Will Deal With The Application Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Manish Panwar For Condonation Of In-Ordinate Delay. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Gold Bullion & Bars. For The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income After Declaring Loss Of Rs. (8,932)/- On 27.09.2012. The Return Of Income Was Initially Processed U/S.143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny.

section 154 was served upon him at the old address. That communication had also consumed time. Therefore, the assessee could not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was the result of ill health coupled with the change of his address thrice in a short

VIKRAM BABULAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ASSESSMENT UNIT IT DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanvikram Babulal Shah Vs. Ito Assessment Unit It 3Rd Floor, R. No. 73, Shreenathji Department Bldg, Gulalwadi 142, Kika Street, Piramal Chambers Mumbai- Maharashtra-400 004 400 012 Pan: Cdops4473E (Appellant) (Respondent)

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