SHRI JIGAR KISHOR MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jigar Kishor Mehta, The Ito-41(4)(2), 50/5, Dhanji Street, 1St Agairy Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Lane, Masjid Bunder, Vs. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 003. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afopm 9328 Q Appellant Respondent

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Jigar Kishor Mehta 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that t the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that t the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

delay is, therefore, condoned. We accordingly proceed to cons the appeal on merits. the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing application u/s 264 of the IT Act, was due to dichotomy in the law on the taxability of deemed dividend

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

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

dividend income of Rs 43,97,077/-. It was further observed by the AO that the assessee was maintaining a common pool of funds as well as accounts for all its activities. He, therefore, asked the assessee as to why the provisions of sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D may not be applied and after considering the reply of the assessee

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

delay is condoned. Now adverting the hear the plea of ld CIT-DR for the revenue on merits. 27. On ground no. 1 which relates to addition of deemed dividend

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

delay is condoned. Now adverting the hear the plea of ld CIT-DR for the revenue on merits. 27. On ground no. 1 which relates to addition of deemed dividend

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of t Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the year under he case are that for the year under consideration no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. consideration no regular return of income was filed

MULUND SAMATA CO-OP HSG SOC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice, to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice-oriented approach. 6.5. In light

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

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate In respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority

CASCADE HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2003-2004 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Acit- Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Central Circle – 31, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacc5768N Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under: “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result

MUKESH SHIVDAS SONAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-3, THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

condone the delay and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. Both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidences produced under Rule 46A of the Income

MUKESH SHIVDAS SONAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-3, THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

condone the delay and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. Both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidences produced under Rule 46A of the Income

SUMIT MOHANSINGH GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT -25(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharysumit Mohansingh Vs. Assistant Commissioner Gandhi, 44/43, Movie Of Income Tax-25(1) Tower, Oshiwara Near Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Yamuna Nagar, Andheri Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To (W) Mumbai – 400053 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Atzps3217K Appellant .. Respondent

deemed dividend. There was a delay in filing this appeal by 103 days and the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation

VELVET HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 31 CEN RG -7, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

delay in filing the appeal are condoned. 7. On merits, the ld. AR submits that he is not pressing Ground of appeal No.1 of the appeal. Considering the contention of the assessee Ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 8. Ground of appeal No.2 relates to disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.1,15,20,783/-. The ld. AR submits

KAILASH NATH VISHWANATH SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 27(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2012-13

delay, thus the same is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that due to medical condition of his wife, the Assessee remained un- represented before the Ld. Commissioner, which resulted into passing of the impugned order dated 09.10.2023, whereby the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and consequently affirmed the addition/disallowances

ITO 15(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VRISA INFOTECH P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodc.O No. 174/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

deemed dividend‘ within the meaning of Sec. 2(22)(e) in its hands. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), we uphold the same. 7. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 8. We shall now advert to the cross-objections filed by the assessee, which are found

ITO 20 (3)(5), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL JUNNAR SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 5-6, Marwadichawl, K.L. Borkar Parel, Marg, Ghaudapdev D.P. Wadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400033 Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vishal Junnar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Patpedhi Maryadit, B/3, Sussex Industrial Estate, Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadojikonddeo Cross Road, Mumbai-400012. Byculla (E), Mumbai-400027. Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(5), Vishal Junnar Sahakari Patpedhi Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 5-6, Marwadichawl, K.L. Borkar Parel, Marg, Ghaudapdev D.P. Wadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400033 Pan No. Aaaav 0104 H Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merit. 5.3 In the grounds raised by the Revenue, the issue involved is of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the Act , which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 5.4 Brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that on the basis