NUTECH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

capital gains in view of the provisions of section 50 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the addition of Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the appellant company. 4. As the appellant company did not get the relief before the Ld. CIT(A), further appeal was instituted before the ITAT. The appeal was filed before

NAVEEN KISHOR MOHNOT,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of ₹.6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny

SMT RUPA HIMANSHU SHRIMANKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-24(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt Rupa Himanshu Shrimankar V. Acit – 24(3) 107, Sagar Avenue, S.V. Road Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400056 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Avups8496B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Kiran Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. On merits, Ld. AR submitted that assessee is a trader and this year assessee has purchased and sold the scrip of Blue Circle Services Limited in this regard he submitted that assessee has claimed loss of valuation in previous assessment year on the same scrip and Ld.CIT(A) allowed

M/S. OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

delay of 4855 days is accordingly condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.\n\n13. On merits the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has always been an investor and not a trader. It was pointed out that the object clause of the company does not contemplate trading in shares that shares have consistently

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay

OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

delay of 4855\ndays is accordingly condoned and the appeal is admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\n13. On merits the learned counsel for the assessee submitted\nthat the assessee has always been an investor and not a\ntrader. It was pointed out that the object clause of the\ncompany does not contemplate trading in shares that shares\nhave consistently been

DHOOT INDUSTRIAL FINANCE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE,, BANGALURU

Bench: SHRI NARNEDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay. It was submitted that the Appellant had a good case on merits as was apparent from the documents on record. The Learned Authorised Representative took us through the documents placed as part of the paper-book to substantiate his submission that the Appellant had already offered the capital gains

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

capital gains\nincome for the A.Y. 2003-04, although the same income was\nassessed as income in the A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 25-03-\n2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 & 147 of the act and was\ndeleted by the learned C.I.T.(A) vide order dated 17-02-2015 and\nthe Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the deletion by dismissing

RESHMA MOHAMMED ASIM ANSARI,BANDRA EAST vs. ITO-23(3)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Ito-23(3)(1), Room No. 402, Mina Centre Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Building, Ahmed Zakaria Nagar, Mumbai-400012. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ardpa 8448 G Appellant Respondent

Capital Gains". 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income [hereinafter referred

PRADIPKUMAR HARAKCHAND DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO , WARD-19(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepradipkumar Harakchand Doshi V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) 94/100, 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Grant Road 2Nd Pathan Street Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aahpd4722B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

condone the delay of 174 days and admit the appeal for disposing off the same on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed his return of income on 12.09.2015 declaring total income at ₹.13,72,670/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the notice under section

LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

capital gain declared by the assesse eclared by the assessee of Rs. 4,00,000/- was over and was over and above Rs. 37,00,000/-. I . In assessment order passed in compliance to the order of the ITAT, the ld AO order passed in compliance to the order of the ITAT order passed in compliance to the order

PUNAM VISHURAJ MOTWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-27)2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rahul Chudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2011-12

condone a delay which itself was non-existent, when computed from existent, when computed from service of notices. 2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law in confirming Penalty that AO had levied

IIT INVESTRUST LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 491)(2), , MUMBAI

Accordingly, we declined to\ninterfere in the order passed by the order passed by the CIT(A) and\nsame is sustained. As a result all the Grounds raised by the Assessee\nare dismissed

condonation of\ndelay, it\nis clear that the return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-\n2009, the Assessee had offered to tax Long Term Capital Gains of\nINR.5,19,90,000/- computed as under:\n\nDate of sale\nQuantity\nSales consideration\nCost of acquisition (taken at)\nGain credited to profit and loss account\n23.07.2007\n10,000\nINR.5

VIVEK AGNIHOTRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has filed the appeal challenging the validity of the revision order U/sec263 of the Act 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of producing of motion pictures and feature films. The assessee has filed the return of income

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gain of Rs.61,49,000/-from sale of listed shares of from sale of listed shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2. BECAUSE

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gain of Rs.61,49,000/-from sale of listed shares of from sale of listed shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2. BECAUSE

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gain of Rs.61,49,000/-from sale of listed shares of from sale of listed shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2. BECAUSE