“appeal before the tribunal”

Bhagwan Bhairu Badre, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

Bench: the City Civil Court, which passed its order on 27.12.2011 2.

Assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), which was dismissed vide order dated 09/01/2025. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at paragraph 2 above. 7. On perusal of record it emerges that the appeal preferred by the Assessee

Ambekar Beverage and Food Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1655/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Ambekar Beverages & V/S. Ito 6(1)(2), Mumbai Food Pvt. Ltd. बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 129, 5Th Floor, 501-502, Road, Mumbai-400020 Shree Krupa, M. B. Raut Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakca7151R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

director of the assessee was unaware of the appellate order, and the previous consultant failed to inform the assessee to file the appeal before this Tribunal. It is further stated that a new consultant has now been appointed to represent the assessee ... dismissed the assessee's appeal exparte. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) has submitted before us that the reasons detailed in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the present

Milagro Ceremica Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

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

except for reference to section 249(3) which requires “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset prayed for affording one more opportunity to the assessee by restoring

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6985/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6986/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit Cc 4(2), Mumbai V/S. Shoppers Stop Ltd. Room No. 420, Kautilya बिधम 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai, Malad Link Road, Malad Maharashtra-400051 (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs4383A Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Aarti Sathe/ Ms. Aasavari Kadam रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

assessee’s appeal on merits vide order dated 05.11.2024. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds. 7. Ground No. 1: Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D – Rs. 2,22,16,000/- 7.1 Brief facts ... coordinate benches in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7.2 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that this is a recurring issue and has been decided in favour of the assessee

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6985/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6986/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit Cc 4(2), Mumbai V/S. Shoppers Stop Ltd. Room No. 420, Kautilya बिधम 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai, Malad Link Road, Malad Maharashtra-400051 (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs4383A Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Aarti Sathe/ Ms. Aasavari Kadam रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

assessee’s appeal on merits vide order dated 05.11.2024. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds. 7. Ground No. 1: Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D – Rs. 2,22,16,000/- 7.1 Brief facts ... coordinate benches in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7.2 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that this is a recurring issue and has been decided in favour of the assessee

Lakhani Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6949/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Acit 28(3), Mumbai 1801, Satra Plaza, Plot No. बिधम Mumbai-400703 20, Sector 19D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl6926A Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

reasonable explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring an income of Rs. 2,93,93,870/- on 26.10.2018. Subsequently

Hotel Galaxy, Thane vs. ACIT Central Circle 3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

only. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) against the quantum addition, assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.4686/Mum/2023 dated 04.09.2024 allowed substantial relief to the assessee on the quantum addition of Rs 72,93,493/-. Addition

Irfaunddin Qayamuddin Qureshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 20(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2013-14

advised for filing of an appeal. Thereafter, the readable copies of the original assessment order was given to the Assessee for filing of appeal before the Tribunal as the chartered accountant was not in talking terms with the Assessee and therefore the advocate was required to communicate with the chartered ... though plausible, however, after finalization/closing of the complaint by the police on dated 15.06.2024 and advising by the chartered accountant for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the Assessee somehow remained inactive and non-vigilant and therefore liable to be suffered for 3 Mr. Irfaunddin Qayamuddin Qureshi latches. However, considering

Marwadi Yuva Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Limited, Kalyan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

happened, it were contrary to law and were prohibited. Thus, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded to provide one opportunity to make all the required submissions and explanations by remitting

Jamshed R Bilimoria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Range 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6252/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6251/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) Jameshed R. Bilimoria V/S. Ito-19(1)(5), Mumbai C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry बिधम Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Llp, 2Nd Floor, Esplande Piramal Chambers, House, 29 Hazrimal Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aappb8124R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Amey Wagle/ Ms. Aruna Iyer रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding that CPC had rightly not granted TDS credit

Jamshed R Bilimoria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Range 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6252/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6251/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) Jameshed R. Bilimoria V/S. Ito-19(1)(5), Mumbai C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry बिधम Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Llp, 2Nd Floor, Esplande Piramal Chambers, House, 29 Hazrimal Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aappb8124R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Amey Wagle/ Ms. Aruna Iyer रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding that CPC had rightly not granted TDS credit

DCIT(Exemp)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education and Development Trust, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Being aggrieved, by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. The Assessee has filed application under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (for short ‘ITAT Rules’) supporting

Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax - Circle 41-1-1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

case may be. 3.8. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). 3.9. In the above factual background we would now take appeals ... deleted the addition of INR.81,89,072/- made in the hands of the Assessee. 10. Therefore, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax- 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

case may be. 3.8. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). 3.9. In the above factual background we would now take appeals ... deleted the addition of INR.81,89,072/- made in the hands of the Assessee. 10. Therefore, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

case may be. 3.8. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). 3.9. In the above factual background we would now take appeals ... deleted the addition of INR.81,89,072/- made in the hands of the Assessee. 10. Therefore, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule

DCIT 41.1.1, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumb vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

levied, as the case may be. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). In the above factual background we would now take ... Learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of INR.81,89,072/- made in the hands of the Assessee. Therefore, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

case may be. 3.8. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). 3.9. In the above factual background we would now take appeals ... deleted the addition of INR.81,89,072/- made in the hands of the Assessee. 10. Therefore, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Jewellery Manufact Urers, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

appeal the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The revenue is appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that assessee has debited

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

deleted both the additions made u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against which the assessee has also filed its cross-objections. P a g e | 12 ITA No. 3111 & 31110/Mum/2024

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jekin Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

deleted both the additions made u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against which the assessee has also filed its cross-objections. P a g e | 12 ITA No. 3111 & 31110/Mum/2024