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

depreciation) and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and Subsequently order u/s 143(3) r.w.s144C(1) of the Act determining the total income u/s 115JB of Rs. 90,99,78,259/- was passed on 28.01.2014. The Assessing Officer (A.O) after recording the reasons for reopening of assesseement has issued notice

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 ()

condoned only under section 119(2)(b) by the competent authority, and that since the issue originated from the intimation under section 143(1) and an appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A), the same cannot be examined in the present proceedings. The dispute thus centres on the nature of Form 10-IC, the scope of appellate jurisdiction

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merit. 10. In ground no.1, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of depreciation

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

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

depreciation in view of\nnon-submission of purchase invoices of Rs.8,01,000/- for financial year\n2015-16 and Rs.2.65,545/- without appreciating the fact that said\nassets have been used in the business and income generated using this\nFixed Assets have been offered to tax. The Lrnd. AO has considered the\npurchase of Asset as unexplained Asset

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay cannot be condoned. With these observations the Assessing Officer did not take cognizance of the revised return filed and the total income was assessed as per the original return filed for the purpose of computation of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made computation of income determining the total income

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay cannot be condoned. With these observations the Assessing Officer did not take cognizance of the revised return filed and the total income was assessed as per the original return filed for the purpose of computation of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made computation of income determining the total income

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR IT PARK THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

delay or technical lapse in filing the prescribed form. Circular No. 07/2023 dated 31.05.2023 – lays down monetary limits and authority-wise powers for condonation under section 119(2)(b). Importantly, it reiterates that claims relating to Form 10-IC can be condoned by the appropriate authority. 16. Reliance in this regard is also being placed upon the following decisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR, IT PARK, THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

delay or technical lapse in filing the prescribed form. Circular No. 07/2023 dated 31.05.2023 – lays down monetary limits and authority-wise powers for condonation under section 119(2)(b). Importantly, it reiterates that claims relating to Form 10-IC can be condoned by the appropriate authority. 16. Reliance in this regard is also being placed upon the following decisions

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

delay was due to technical glitches on the income tax Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on 31/03/2022, Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on Portal, for which the assessee had filed grievances on for which no proper solution was provided. for which no proper solution was provided. Before us, the assessee Before us, the assessee

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

YOJANA SURESH BHOIR,THANE vs. CPC, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), THANE, THANE

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

depreciation. The assessee challenged this before the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed due to a delay of approximately 17 months in filing, which the CIT(A) declined to condone

THEIS PRECISION STEEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider the reasons advanced by the appellant for the delay, in its affidavit, in their right perspective. 3. The appellant submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to consider that professional

THEIS PRECISION STEEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider the reasons advanced by the appellant for the delay, in its affidavit, in their right perspective. 3. The appellant submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to consider that professional

ANISH METALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon‟Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am

condone the delay overlooking the fact that, as held by the apex court, the appellate authority has to 3 I.T.A. No. 6274/Mum/2008 & 1093/Mum/10 & ITA No. 5474 & 5475/Mum/2011 M/s Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd. exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "Sufficient Cause", the principles of advancing substantial justice is of prime

MILAGRO CEREMICA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay of 100 days. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of the hearing.” 3. Brief facts as culled out from records are that assessee filed its return of income on 22.10.2018, reporting total income at Rs. 4,15,59,520/-. Subsequently, case was selected

STUDIO & ENTERTAINMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 S.J. Studio & Entertainment Ltd., The Acit, Range 11(1), Ground Floor, Hindustan Oil Mills 438, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Compound, Kherani Road, Saki Road, Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aajcs 0805 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. : Revenue By Dr. Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2023

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In our opinion, due to medical reasons stated in the affidavit by the director of the medical reasons stated in the affidavit by the director of the medical reasons stated in the affidavit by the director of the assessee company, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause assessee company, the assessee was prevented