“appeal before the tribunal”

M/S.Wellknown Polyesters Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

assessment order and confirmed the addition of ₹6,32,82,073/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee raised legal issue vide challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal. In our view, no benefit would have accrued to the Appellant by delaying filing of appeal. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Therefore, delay of 150 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 4. It emerges that the asse

would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In the present the Appellant has provided sufficient explanation for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In our view, no benefit would have accrued to the Appellant by delaying filing of appeal. When substantial justice and technical consideration

ACIT-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

legs to stand. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 8. We find that the Learned CIT(A) has allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee

Ramani Mathuraprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Assessee to be reasonable, we hold that in the present case the Assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others ... reason to doubt the explanation offered by the Appellant in the present case. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 51 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee appearing before us submitted that the Assessee

Parekh Ornaments LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailparekh Ornaments Llp 20, Chandra Villa, Nehru Road, Vileparle (East), Mumbai - 400057 ............... Appellant Pan: Aasfp4562A V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), ……………… Respondent Prathistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Annexe, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr

September, 2025 for the above purpose. During the course of our discussion, the chartered accountant inquired about the status of the appeal before the Tribunal in the quantum appeal for AY 2017-18 and directed us to provide him with the copy of the appeal filed. When we checked ... about the disposal of the appeals against the assessment order for both the assessment years and accordingly he had not filed any appeal to the Tribunal against the appeal orders for both the years. 9. After going through the appeal order dated 17-7-2023 and the assessment order

Dentsu Aegis Network India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A) which was dismissed vide Order dated 11/07/2025. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. Ground No. 1.1 to 1.3. 6. Ground No.1.1 to 1.3 raised by the Assessee pertain

Shri Bharat Navinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee ... seek condonation of delay before this Tribunal is sufficient to condone the delay and whether, there exists sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal before this Tribunal within the period of limitation under the statute, the assessee must show that, it was diligent in taking appropriate steps and the delay

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

certain additions/disallowances for which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), whereby reliefs were granted. Against the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. For ground no.1, relating to disallowance of provision for legal and professional expenses, facts of the case are that during the year ... Coordinate Bench of ITAT, ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s.80G against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.2. On the given set of facts, we note that the issue before us is no longer res integra as dealt by long line

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

certain additions/disallowances for which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), whereby reliefs were granted. Against the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. For ground no.1, relating to disallowance of provision for legal and professional expenses, facts of the case are that during the year ... Coordinate Bench of ITAT, ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s.80G against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.2. On the given set of facts, we note that the issue before us is no longer res integra as dealt by long line

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

certain additions/disallowances for which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), whereby reliefs were granted. Against the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. For ground no.1, relating to disallowance of provision for legal and professional expenses, facts of the case are that during the year ... Coordinate Bench of ITAT, ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s.80G against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.2. On the given set of facts, we note that the issue before us is no longer res integra as dealt by long line

ACIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

certain additions/disallowances for which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), whereby reliefs were granted. Against the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. For ground no.1, relating to disallowance of provision for legal and professional expenses, facts of the case are that during the year ... Coordinate Bench of ITAT, ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s.80G against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.2. On the given set of facts, we note that the issue before us is no longer res integra as dealt by long line