ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

SHREE SWAMY SAMARTH PRASSANA OSHIWARA (E) UNITS CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

reopening assessment us. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tax Act, 1961. 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee was not required to file the return

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

reopened the assessment on wrong facts, without proper sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and without complying the provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act. without complying the provisions of Section

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

reopened the assessment on wrong facts, without proper sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and without complying the provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act. without complying the provisions of Section

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

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2014 was served to the assessee company. In response to the said notice, a request was made by the assessee company vide letter dated 02.04.2014 to supply a copy of the reason recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. The request of the assessee company

PINKAL DILIP BHANSALI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

delay being being being unintentional unintentional unintentional and and and supported supported supported by by by bona bona bona fide fide fide Pinkal Dilip Bhansali circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

delay in doing so is to\nbe condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant\nhad sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This\nposition emanates from the plain reading of the Section 249\nwhich stipulates thus:\n"..249\n(2) the appeal shall be presented within thirty days of\n(a) Where the appeal is date

SUREAKSHA DB REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 30(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

reopening and passing of the order are found to be without merit and hence rejected.‖ 010. On the validity of the return of income filed under section 139(1) manually, he upheld the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed that the return is an invalid return holding as under :- ―17. Now coming to the issue whether return

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condone the delay in filing the\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A).\n4. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a company\ndealing in listed and unlisted securities. For your under\nconsideration assessee did not file any return of income and\ntherefore the Ld.AO issued notice under section 148 of the act on\n22/03/2019. The Ld.AR submitted that during

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

reopened u/s 148 of the Act by issuing notice dated 26/08/2019 for assessment year 2017-18 and 13/03/2024 for assessment year 2018-19. After following the due procedure under the new provisions of the Act, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO, disallowed the claim of assessee towards CSR fund

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

reopened u/s 148 of the Act by issuing notice dated 26/08/2019 for assessment year 2017-18 and 13/03/2024 for assessment year 2018-19. After following the due procedure under the new provisions of the Act, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO, disallowed the claim of assessee towards CSR fund

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding

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

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

assess the email\naccount and therefore was unaware regarding the passing of\nthe order by Ld. CIT(A). Hence keeping in view the principles\nlaid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court Land Acquisition\nCollector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC)\nwherein it has been held that where substantial justice is\npitted against technicalities of none deliberate delay, then

BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(1), 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 Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito-Mum-W(443)(1), 411, Kewal Indl. Estate, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Karve, Road, New Marine Mumbai-400013. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaapz 0864 D Appellant Respondent

reopening the assessment. Without Prejudice to the aforesaid Without Prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of appeal, 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. NFAC 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. NFAC 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. NFAC has erred

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay in filing the cross-objections.” 14. And the Hon’ble High Court has dealt in the aforesaid case (peter vaz) with the objection raised in the present appeals by Ld. CIT- DR that since assessee has not raised objection against jurisdiction of AO at the first instance (during assessment proceedings) as contemplated

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay in filing the cross-objections.” 14. And the Hon’ble High Court has dealt in the aforesaid case (peter vaz) with the objection raised in the present appeals by Ld. CIT- DR that since assessee has not raised objection against jurisdiction of AO at the first instance (during assessment proceedings) as contemplated

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay in filing the cross-objections.” 14. And the Hon’ble High Court has dealt in the aforesaid case (peter vaz) with the objection raised in the present appeals by Ld. CIT- DR that since assessee has not raised objection against jurisdiction of AO at the first instance (during assessment proceedings) as contemplated