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

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

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

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

90\ndays arose due to circumstanced beyond the control of the\nassessee as the assessee was unable to assess the email\naccount and therefore was unaware regarding the passing of\nthe order by Ld. CIT(A). Hence keeping in view the principles\nlaid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court Land Acquisition\nCollector Vs. Mst. Katiji

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

2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has\nto be presented within 30 days of the date of service of notice related to the\nintimation order. The appellant's reason for delay can be accepted at face value\nonly if the dispute between the old and new management arose within this short\ntime frame of 30 day period i.e. between

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

2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has\nto be presented within 30 days of the date of service of notice related to the\nintimation order. The appellant's reason for delay can be accepted at face value\nonly if the dispute between the old and new management arose within this short\ntime frame of 30 day period i.e. between

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

2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has\nto be presented within 30 days of the date of service of notice related to the\nintimation order. The appellant's reason for delay can be accepted at face value\nonly if the dispute between the old and new management arose within this short\ntime frame of 30 day period i.e. between

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

2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of the\ndate of service of notice related to the intimation order. The appellant's\nreason for delay can be accepted at face value only if the dispute between\nthe old and new management arose within this short time frame of 30 day\nperiod i.e. between

B.S.N.L EMPLOYEES JUNIOR CO OPERATIVE CREIDT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbsnl Employees Junior Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., 1St Floor, Bsnl Office Of Cto, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400001 Pan : Aaaat8885H V/S Ito – 17(1)(2), Room No.109, 1St Floor Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Shekhar Patwardhan Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to decide the same on merit. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Learned A.O. has erred in reopening the case u/s. 263 on the directions of the CIT when the original Assessment was us 143(3) & then the order was passed after duly

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

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

90,55,561/- be not treated as income of the assessee company while computing book profits u/s 115JB if the Income Tax Act,1961." 3."On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in giving directions to the AO to verify the calculations u/s 94(7) of the Income

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

BLUE ROSE INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

condone the said delay of 201 days. 11. Coming on to the merits of the case, the definitions of the “co-operative society” under the Income Tax Act 1961 read as under: “section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act 1961 “ ‘Co-Operative Society’ means a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative societies Act 1912 ( 2

BLUE ROSE INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

condone the said delay of 201 days. 11. Coming on to the merits of the case, the definitions of the “co-operative society” under the Income Tax Act 1961 read as under: “section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act 1961 “ ‘Co-Operative Society’ means a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative societies Act 1912 ( 2

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VILE PARLE MAHILA SANGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Praksh Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

section 119(2) of the Act to admit such belated application ITA 1032/Mum/2024 Vile Parle Mahila Sangh for condonation of delay and decide on merits. Since such evidence was not furnished by the assessee in support of the claim, the AO made an addition of Rs.3,53,90

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5)/THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the in- terest income earned on Time Deposits maintained with Co-operative Banks. 2.1. There is a delay of 373 days in filing the present appeal for which petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit are placed on record. It is submitted that wife of Chairman of assessee was suffering from lung

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