DILIP PREMNARAYAN KABRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledilip Premnarayan Kabra V. Dcit – Circle 17(1) 117, Kautilya Bhavan 4Th Floor, Arihant Mansion G Block, Bkc Avenue 3 K.N. Road, Masjid Bunder Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400009 Pan: Ahcpk9734A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mr. Aditya Maheswari Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

condonation of delay in filing appeal was not considered by Honourable CIT(A). 2. On the facts & circumstance of the case the learned assessing officer erred in allowing the business expenses of Rs. 40,26,292/- only out of total expenses incurred for business purpose Rs.1,07,98,605/-. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that assessee Society has made investments as per the statutory requirements governing the Society

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

AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

condone the delay with such delay. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.03.2013 declaring total income of ₹.16,90,830/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. KHANDELWAL ESTATE P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

income and depreciation on the business asset is allowable and the corresponding expenditure is also held to be allowable. Ground No.4 51. So far as Ground No.4 is concerned, the same is in relation to the carried forward of losses pertaining to the depreciation of earlier years. In view of our finding given above, while deciding the assessee’s appeal

KHANDELWAL ESTATES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

income and depreciation on the business asset is allowable and the corresponding expenditure is also held to be allowable. Ground No.4 51. So far as Ground No.4 is concerned, the same is in relation to the carried forward of losses pertaining to the depreciation of earlier years. In view of our finding given above, while deciding the assessee’s appeal

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. KHANDELWAL ESTATE P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

income and depreciation on the business asset is allowable and the corresponding expenditure is also held to be allowable. Ground No.4 51. So far as Ground No.4 is concerned, the same is in relation to the carried forward of losses pertaining to the depreciation of earlier years. In view of our finding given above, while deciding the assessee’s appeal

KHANDELWAL ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

income and depreciation on the business asset is allowable and the corresponding expenditure is also held to be allowable. Ground No.4 51. So far as Ground No.4 is concerned, the same is in relation to the carried forward of losses pertaining to the depreciation of earlier years. In view of our finding given above, while deciding the assessee’s appeal

KHANDELWAL ESTATE (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

income and depreciation on the business asset is allowable and the corresponding expenditure is also held to be allowable. Ground No.4 51. So far as Ground No.4 is concerned, the same is in relation to the carried forward of losses pertaining to the depreciation of earlier years. In view of our finding given above, while deciding the assessee’s appeal

SHRIJAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,SANTACRUZ (EAST) vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

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

delay in filing the appeals appeals appeals stands stands stands condoned. condoned. condoned. The The The appeals appeals appeals are are are admitted admitted admitted for for for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits. 3.3 As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that

SHRIJAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,SANTACRUZ (EAST) vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, CUMABALLA HILL

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

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

delay in filing the appeals appeals appeals stands stands stands condoned. condoned. condoned. The The The appeals appeals appeals are are are admitted admitted admitted for for for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits. 3.3 As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

condone the delay of 382 and 233 days for Asst Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively in filing the appeals, in the interest of 6 M/s. Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. substantial justice and admit those appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue in all these appeals is that whether

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

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

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay cannot be condoned. With these observations the Assessing Officer did not take cognizance of the revised return filed and the total income was assessed as per the original return filed for the purpose of computation of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made computation of income determining the total income

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay cannot be condoned. With these observations the Assessing Officer did not take cognizance of the revised return filed and the total income was assessed as per the original return filed for the purpose of computation of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made computation of income determining the total income

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

business of construction of properties and sale thereof. In fact, in the submissions, the appellant has also admitted that it was never its intention to earn income by letting out the premises. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust ltd. is squarely applicable