ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with regard to assessee’s claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with regard to assessee’s claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n22.\nWe have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully\ngoing through the order of learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that\nthe grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with\nregard to assessee's claim of exemption either Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

34) and 10(35) of the Act raised\nin Ground No.2, the Ground No.1 for the purpose of present appeal having become\nacademic is kept open.\n\n18.\nGround No.4 being consequential in nature does not require specific\nadjudication.\n\n19.\nIn the result, appeal is partly allowed.\n\nITA No. 4852/Mum/2024 (Revenue's appeal

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 PAN NO. AACPT 3505 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Shah Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR Date of Hearing : 18/08/2025 : 26/08/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 PAN NO. AACPT 3505 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Shah Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR Date of Hearing : 18/08/2025 : 26/08/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee

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 ()

delayed filing of Form 10-IC, automatically invalidates an option already exercised in the return. The assessee’s eligibility to opt for section 115BAA is not in dispute; only the timing of filing the prescribed form is in question. Thus, the controversy in the present facts does not involve enlargement of delegated condonation power, but interpretation of the substantive provision