NEW BOMBAY MERCHANTS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC BANGALORE, CPC BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(1)of the Act, date of order21/02/2018. 2. The assesseehas taken the following grounds of appeal:- “GROUND NO. 1: FAILURE OF CIT(A) TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF ADDL/JCIT(A)-5 CHENNAI DT, 22.10.2024. GROUND NO.1 : FAILURE OF CIT(A) TO ALLOW EXEMPTON U/S 11 OF RS.86,80,000 The Id. CIT(A) erred in laws

JASLOK HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (E)-II (1), MUMBAI

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

246A of the Act. 1.3. The appellant prays that the order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act be treated as null and void and accordingly be set aside. 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of exemption under section

M/S ALUBOUND DACS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Alubound Dacs India Private Dy. Cit, Circle-6(1)(1) Limited Mumbai 301, T V Industrial Estate, Vs. Behind Glaxo, Ahire Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 030

Charitable Trust, Surendranagar, Gujarat 15,00,000 M/s. Bharat Education Society’s Neral Rs.10,00,000/- AAATB0196Q School Building All India Social Education Trust Rs.10,00,000/- AACTA 1516D 3 M/s. Alubound Dacs India Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 6. In an appeal before the first appellate authority, the impugned addition was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have made submissions

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

KUTCHI SARVODAYA NAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) - 1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailkutchi Sarvodaya Nagar Vs. Income Tax Officer P.L. Lokhande Marg, (Exemptions)-1(4) Near Narayan Guru High Piramal Chambers, School, Govandi, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400043 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk0678E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pradip Kapasi Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Ground No. 1: Failure To Issue Notice U/S. 250 The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Issue Notice For Furnishing Written Submissions And/Or Hearing Of Appeal As Required U/S 250(1), (2) & (6B) Read With The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 Issued Under Notification No 139/2021 Dt 28.12.2021 Of The Act & In Particular Not Allowing The Appellant To Furnish Its Submissions. Your Appellant Prays That An Order Passed Without Issuing Notice U/S. 250 Be Quashed Ii Ground No. 2: Failure To Give Opportunity Of Hearing By Cit(A) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Order In Appeal Without Giving An Opportunity Of Hearing, Orally Or Virtually, As Required By The Provisions Of The Act. Rules, Scheme, Notifications & Circulars & The Decisions Of The Courts & In Particular The Decision In The Cases Of Ba Continuum India (P.) Ltd., 125 Taxmann.Com 180 (Bom.) & Sanjay Aggarwal, 127 Taxmann.Com

246A on 01.02.2017 before CIT(A) against the main order dt. 28.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) under Acknowledgement No. 608794081010217 (Appeal No. CIT(A) 1, MUMBAI / 10937/2016-17) was pending for disposal Your appellant strongly submits that there was no error or mistake in order of assessment which was apparent on records. Your appellant pleads that the impugned order passed