CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 263 provide that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard

SANDEEP P. PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -16, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

condone the delay and admit the appeal.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income tax - 16, (hereinafter referred to as the Principal CIT) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order dated 28-11-2017 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous

AADI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT -14, MUMBAI

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee has filed return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of ₹.1,99,89,697/- and summary assessment u/s. 143(1) of the Act was made on 29.08.2011. Subsequently, information received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit

VINAYAK MHATRE,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 26 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

revised for the said reason. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, therefore, vide his order passed u/s 263, dated 23.03.2017 he held the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s

VINAYAK MHATRE,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 26 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

revised for the said reason. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, therefore, vide his order passed u/s 263, dated 23.03.2017 he held the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s

VINAYAK MHATRE,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 26 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

revised for the said reason. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, therefore, vide his order passed u/s 263, dated 23.03.2017 he held the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s

M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1689 /Mum/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Alimaan Charitable Commissioner Of Income Trust, 206, Rewa Chambers, Vs. Tax (Exemptions),R. No. New Marine Lines, 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai – 400 020 Chambers, Lal Baug,Parel,Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aaata2536P (Assessee ) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Firojandhyaruzina, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 28/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2021

u/s 263 of the Act therein set-aside the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 28.06.2017, with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed the order passed by the CIT under Sec.263 of the Act, dated 20.03.2020 before

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. However, there is delay of 252 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in support of the application. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that pursuant

OMKAILASH FINANCE & INVESTMENT P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Om Kailash Finance & Principal Commissioner Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax – 4 (Pr. 101/A, Ritvi Park, Cit-4), 629, 6Th Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai – 400 054 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No.Aaacoo496P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri R.K. Sahu, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 (For Short “Pr.Cit”), Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 18.02.2020, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W Sec 147 Of The Act Dated 28.12.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Pr.Cit Grossly Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without

revised u/s 263 of the Act. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the „bad debts‟ to the tune of Rs. 48,43,750/- were debited under the head “administrative expenses” and a provision for doubtful debt for the said amount was made in the „balance sheet‟. It was further stated by the assessee that the provision

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned. We hold so. 9 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2642 & 2643/Mum/2016 12. Insofar as the merits of the issues raised are concerned, it was a common point between the parties that the issues are fully covered by the decisions of the Tribunal dated 01/04/2016(supra) and 19/02/2016(supra

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned. We hold so. 9 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2642 & 2643/Mum/2016 12. Insofar as the merits of the issues raised are concerned, it was a common point between the parties that the issues are fully covered by the decisions of the Tribunal dated 01/04/2016(supra) and 19/02/2016(supra

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

condone the delay. 3. Secondly, from the Order of PCIT, it can be seen that Order under section 143(1) passed by CPC disallowing the decision under section 80JJAA due to delay in filing Form 10DA also was not considered by AO. The Ld.AO has not applied his mind to this aspect, without raising this issue of delay (passed

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready reference, it is relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director of relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready reference, it is relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director of relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director

PRAJATMA TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -7, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Cit-7, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Room No. 620, Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 18Th Floor, A Wing, Marathon Vs. Mumbai-400020. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent) Prajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-, Circle 7(1), 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), M. K. Road, Vs. 135, Continental Building, Dr. Mumbai-400020. Ab. Road, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent)

revised by ld. CIT vide order dated 29.03.2011. The ld. CIT while setting-aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 11.12.2008 directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass the assessment order afresh. The assessee has not filed any appeal immediately on passing the order dated 29.03.2011 on the good faith and belief that order u/s 263 is merely direction

PRAJATMA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Cit-7, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Room No. 620, Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 18Th Floor, A Wing, Marathon Vs. Mumbai-400020. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent) Prajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-, Circle 7(1), 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), M. K. Road, Vs. 135, Continental Building, Dr. Mumbai-400020. Ab. Road, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent)

revised by ld. CIT vide order dated 29.03.2011. The ld. CIT while setting-aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 11.12.2008 directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass the assessment order afresh. The assessee has not filed any appeal immediately on passing the order dated 29.03.2011 on the good faith and belief that order u/s 263 is merely direction

DNYANSHWAR NIVRUTI TALPADE,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydhyaneshwar Nivrutti Vs. Principal Commissioner Talapade, Plot No. 207, Of Income Tax, 6 Th Floor, Nirmal Nagar At Post Ashar I.T. Park, Road Asangaon, Shahpur, Number 162 Nehru Nagar Shahpur Maharashtra - Wagle Ind. Estate, 421601 Thane (W) 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ackpt2532N Appellant .. Respondent

condonation of delay vide letter dated 31.05.2022 and affidavit dated 11.11.2022. The assessee has stated that the case of the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) in physical mode. However, thereafter the revision proceedings were initiated u/s 263

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of revision order as under: 1. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 263

SHREE D.K. ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

condone the delay of 112 days and admit the appeal for hearing. I.T.A. No.5659/Mum/2016 2 Assessment year:2011-12 3. The only issue involved in various grounds taken by the assessee is that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cancelling the assessment order and directing the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment as per the direction