“legal representative”

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

ACIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dattatray Pandurang Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is set aside

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2468/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri. Dattatray Jayantika Singh Pandurang Mhaiskar Asst. Commissioner Of Mumbai Income Tax 6(1) (1) 501, Dattashram Lane बिधम/ Mumbai No.1 Hindu Colony, Room No 504, Aaykar Vs. Dadar, Mumbai Bhavan, M.K.Road, 400014 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aatpm1257A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Rander प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar (Sr. Ar.) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2021, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 53 Mumbai

while making the registration of legal heir on e-filing portal and thus, the appellant contended that notice ought to be served to the legal representative of appellant, Ms Sudha Mhaiskar in accordance with the provisions of section 159 of the Act which deals with Legal Representatives. 4 I.T.A

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Dreamz Dwellers LLP (Legal Representative of M/S.Megacorp Developers Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15

MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT-24(1), M/s Dreamz Dwellers LLP Room No. 604, 6th floor, (Legal Representative of M/s Piramal Chamber, Parel, Vs. Megacorp Developers Pvt. Mumbai-400012. Ltd.) 702, Natraj, M.V. Road, Junction, Western Express Highway Andheri East, Mumbai

Miss Harshita Ramesh Kataria, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-30, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

erred in passing an order u/s 263 on the basis of notice issued in the name of Deceased assessee, inspite of having details of legal representative on records with him and therefore the order of the Learned "Pr. CIT" passed in the name of legal heir (without mentioning the name

Estate of Suresh Vallabhji Vora, Mumbai vs. AO WD 23(3) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Estate Of Suresh Vallabhji Vora, Ao Ward 23(3)(4), 201(A), 2Nd Floor, Unique Centre, 15 Matru Mnadir, Tardeo Road, Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 007. 400050. Pan No. Aabae 5685 M Appellant Respondent

case are that the assessee Late Shri Suresh Vallabhji Vora died and subsequent to his death, his Estate of Suresh Vallabhji Vora 3 legal representatives filed return of income in respect of his Estate on 19.10.2019 declaring total income of ₹3,73,040/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer of Central Processing ... behind him more than one heir, the Assessing Officer should proceed to assess the total income of the deceased against all the executors or legal representative, as the case of may be. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that assessee itself has obtained PAN in the status

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Yogiraj Jaichand Maker, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

deceased assessee, is the legal heir and accordingly was taken on record and assessment was completed in the name of the legal representative. For the year under consideration, the deceased assessee earned income from rendering professional services as management consultant and also on capital gain as well as income from

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

where the assessee did not file a return for three assessment years and died in the meantime. His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns upon which the assessing officer issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2). These were complied with and no objections ... were raised to the assessment proceedings. The assessment order mentioned the names of all the legal representatives and the assessment was made in the status of an individual. In appeal, it was contended that the assessment proceedings were void as all the legal representatives were not given notice. In this

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiemens Ltd (Successor Vs. Dcit, In Interest To Siemens Corporate Circle - Building Technologies 8(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,) Room No. 615, 6Th Birla Aurora, Level 20, Floor, Aayakar P.No. 1080, Ar. Annie Bhavan, Mk Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs0764L Appellant .. Respondent

where the assessee did not file a return for three assessment years and died in the meantime. His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns upon which the assessing officer issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2). These were complied with and no objections ... were raised to the assessment proceedings. The assessment order mentioned the names of all the legal representatives and the assessment was made in the status of an individual. In appeal, it was contended that the assessment proceedings were void as all the legal representatives were not given notice. In this

ITO 28 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vasant Purshottam Thakkar, Mumbai

Accordingly the cross objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

that a consideration of ₹ 17.50 crores is payable by purchaser and that the vendor‟s number 1 – 7 are the only legal heirs and legal representative of Mr Shivji Raghavji who had 41% share in the said property. He therefore stated that the 41% share of the total sale consideration

Estate of Bomsifarrok Kaka, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-Nafc, Delhi

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2019-20

Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the same has been reflected in Form 26AS of Mrs. Perviz F Kaka (PAN: AAQPK8470J) (Legal Representative) of the assessee. The Appellant prays that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (DCIT) be directed to grant a credit of the Tax Deducted at Source ... Estate of Bomsifarrok Kaka deducted at source (TDS) to the tune of Rs.64,290/- in form 26AS of Mrs. Perviz F. Kaka (legal representative of the assessee) as per intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order

Varad Vinayak Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (3)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

notice was issued to the assessee on 8th January 2015. 8. The assessee complied with the notice issued under section 142(1) throw its legal representative namely M/s Hemani & Company Charted Accountant vide their letter dated 22nd January 2015. 9. The letter dated 22 January 2015 provided as under