“appeal before CIT(A)”

Gopalkrishna Pandu Shetty, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 32(1), Mumbai, Mahrashtra

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

hands of the Appellant vide Assessment Order, dated 19/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. However, the ground raised in appeal on this issue was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 18/05/2023 by placing reliance upon ... name of his 5 wife, the deduction was not allowable. He reduced the deduction and computed the capital gains accordingly. 5. On appeal, the CIT (Appeal) accepted the assessee's contention based on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271/154 Taxman

Lalit Ratanchand Jagawat, Mumbai vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-23(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

which culminated into passing of order dated 24/12/2019 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. 2 The Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the addition of 4. INR 47,22,429/- made in the hands of the Appellant under Section

Trafigura Global Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI PRAHSANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

added the same back to the total income of the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 8. challenging the above disallowance. However, the CIT(A) agreed with the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal on this issue vide order, dated 08/09/2023. Being aggrieved by the above

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

Disallowance of deduction of INR 8,45,167/- claimed under Section 80G of the Act Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the above addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A), vide order, dated 14/03/2023, disposed off the appeal preferred by the Assessee as partly ... Officer and therefore, disallowance of INR 8,45,167/- [being 50% of INR 16,90,333/-] was made by the Assessing Officer. In appeal before CIT(A), the Assessee furnished proof of donations of balance amount of INR 16,90,333/- consisting of donation of INR 12,03,209/- made

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY.S (Accountant Member)

appeal of assessee in- limine. He further pointed that on merits the assessee has got a good case and prayed for restoring the appeal to CIT(A). He further informed that appeal against the assessment order is still pending for final disposal before the CIT(A). 4. Per contra ... Form No.35. After hearing the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee we are satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal before CIT(A) is for bonafide reasons narrated in Form No.35 filed before CIT(A) . 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case

Silver Brook Financial Learning Centre Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 5(3)(2), Mumbai

return income vide order, dated 17/02/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 10. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Vide order, dated 05/07/2018, the CIT(A) rejected the contention of the Appellant that Mr. N had provided professional services to the Appellant ... York. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding disallowed the travelling expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. 23. Subsequently in the appeal before CIT(A) against the disallowance of travelling expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) allowed the travelling expenses

Guhagar Taluka Kunbi Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22 (1) (1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

above addition of INR 60,19,506/- under 4. Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the immovable property under consideration was initially agreed to be acquired