PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal of the\nassessee is admitted for adjudication.\n\n3. Further, the Ld. AR has brought to our notice that the assessee has\nmoved an application seeking permission to raise following additional\ngrounds of appeal which read as under:\n\n\" 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

CREDENCE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC-2(4), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6022/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2011-12) Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. 702, Natraj, M.V.Road, Junction W.E. Highway, Andheri(E) Mumbai – 400 069 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aabcc-9387-Q बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Cir.2(4), Mumbai, Room No.802, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Naresh Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra

carry forward of losses of current year, therefore, the assessee had no reason to believe that the assessee is required to file petition u/s. 119 of the Act for condonation of delay

SKY LITE ELECTRO FIXTURES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Now, we shall take up the grounds of appeal raised on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the view taken by the Ld.AO that the carried forward business loss

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

carried forward or d forward or set-off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming

BHAVYESH P. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

carrying forward speculation loss for set off in future years - Rs.1,73,127/-. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend, the above Grounds of Appeal as and when advised. 3. At the outset we note that there is a delay of 141 days in filing the appeal. 4. For the condonation

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

delay in payment of taxes or mistiming of payment of taxes. It has nothing to do with the present situation where taxes have admittedly been paid abroad in the relevant previous year, but no taxes on the said income have been levied in India at all. We reject this line of argument as well. ITA No: 869/Mum/2018 Assessment year

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

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.8,37,59,368/- arising from sale of equity shares. With regard to case law relied by the Ld. DR in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd., v. DCIT (supra), the issue involved in that case was whether long term capital loss incurred on which STT paid could

M.P.RE-CYCLING CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned the delay and accordingly, not only the loss can be allowed to be carried forward but also the issue

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

GODFREY LLOYD VAZ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

carry forward of loss under the head "Income from House Property". Accordingly, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 6,07,848/- being 200% of tax on the income allegedly misrepresented by the assessee. 4. There is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the ld. AR filed application for condoning

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

condonation of delay, initially, the assessee has filed Affidavit of its Manager (Accounts), Shri Tushar Baliram Prabhu, wherein, it is stated that being on the impression that on account of losses and carry forward

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (iii) without set off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1)(2), BANGALURU

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm &\Nms Padmavathy S, Am\Ni.T.A. No. 915/Mum/2017\N(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\Nhewlett Packard Financial\Nservices (India) Pvt. Ltd.,\N24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main\Nroad, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.\Npan: Aabcc5967C\Nappellant)\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Nacit, Circle-2(1)(2),\Naayakar Bhavan,\Nvs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.\N:\N:\N:\N:\Nrespondent)\Nshri Percy Pardiwala &\Nmr. Ninad Patade, Ar\Nshri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr\N22.09.2025\N21.10.2025\Norder\Nper Padmavathy S, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 25.10.2016 For Assessment Years (Ay)\N2011-12. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:\N(I) Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation On \"Hp Indigo Digital Press\Nprinter\" @ 60% - Ground No. 1.1 To 1.7\N(Ii) Treatment Of Ceased Liability As Income U/S 41 - Ground No. 2.1 To\N2.9\N(Iii) Disallowance Of Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Ground\Nno. 3.1 To 3.9\N(Iv) Disallowance Of Provision For Tds Certificates & Addition To\Nbook Profits U/S.115Jb - Ground No.

loss in the\nprescribed form. Accordingly, the ld. AR argued that the combined perusal of the\nabove provisions of the Act makes it clear that the requirement to file the return of\nincome in order to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation is not provided in the\nAct and therefore the assessee's claim cannot be denied on that ground

JORD ENGINEERS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Amit Shukla ()

carried out at Vadodara and the fact that the assessment order has been served to the Head office located at Mumbai are not disputed. It is stated that the clerical staff who received the order has forwarded the same to the then Executive Director and it is stated that the said Executive Director has submitted resignation letter at that point

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

forward by the assessee for condonation of delay are devoid of merits and the application may kindly be dismissed.” 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record and affidavit filed by the assessee that assessee has supposed to file the appeal before ITAT on or before 25.09.2011. Shri Narayan J. Pagarani However

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

forward by the assessee for condonation of delay are devoid of merits and the application may kindly be dismissed.” 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record and affidavit filed by the assessee that assessee has supposed to file the appeal before ITAT on or before 25.09.2011. Shri Narayan J. Pagarani However