← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1046/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

M/S Privilege Power & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle- 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Bench In Order To Assist The Bench, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex-Parte, Without The Presence Of The Assessee.

Section 139(1)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

confirmed the action of the AO in respect of all the above said three items. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have gone through the order passed by Ld CIT(A). We notice that the assessee has furnished written submissions before him. We also

Microland Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 411/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 3

Form No.10 is condoned by the CIT(Exemption). 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for adjourning the matter. However, we reject the same, since no valid reasons were given

Microland Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 410/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 3

Form No.10 is condoned by the CIT(Exemption). 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for adjourning the matter. However, we reject the same, since no valid reasons were given

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.989/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Electronic City, Hosur Road, Tax, Bengaluru – 560 100. International Taxation, Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Of Cit(A) - 12, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Bpo Services. The Assessee Made Payment Of 2100 Us$ To A Non- Resident Viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,)

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 248Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

form of training, fees fall within the ambit of definition of FTS under the Act and is taxable in India. 5. In this appeal before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed before us a list of decisions wherein it has been held that payment for training services

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Classic Shares and Stock Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 1392/MUM/2022[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. M/S. Classic Shares R.No. 676B, 6Th Floor & Stock Services Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., M.K. Road, 121, 1St Floor, Radha Mumbai-400020 Bhawan, Nigindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400023 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc5745P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Akash Kumar.Ar Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Ujjawal Kumar.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Akash Kumar.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the appeal. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Tribunal has set aside both the issues of loss on trading shares and sundry bad debts written

Dow Agro Sciences India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14 (1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal are disposed of as infructuous

ITA 1234/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sixty Days Prior To “The Timeline For The Assessment Order, It Is Implied That Such Order Must Precede 31 December By Not Less Than Sixty Days.”

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer on 01.11.2019. We note that in the case of M/s Emerson Electric (Company) India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the appeal before the Tribunal pertained to the Assessment Year 2016-17 and the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was also passed on 2 Assessment Year

Kamla Landmarc Properties, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1073/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamla Landmarc Properties, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1072/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamla Landmarc Properties, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1071/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamla Landmarc Properties, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1070/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

M/S Sunmoon Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7747/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Sunmoonenterprises Vs. Acit – 19(3) Fc-8160A, Fc-8161, Fc- Matru Mandir Bldg 8162, Brarat Diamond Mumbai- 400007 Bourse, Bkc, Bandra E Mumbai - 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfs2654D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ketan Vajani.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. M/s Sun Moon Enterprises, Mumbai. 4. The assessee has raised the various grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, whereas the Ld.AR of the assessee has pressed only the grounds of appeal pertaining to the addition confirmed by the CIT(A)@ 8% which

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4443/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4442/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4441/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamla Shanti Developers P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3) (4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4390/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4389/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4388/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4387/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

gifts aggregating to Rs. 93.70 lakhs is concerned, the CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that