HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

115-O, being\nindependent of the assessment of total income under Section 143(3) of the Act,\nmust be adjudicated in a separate appeal under Section 246A of the Act. The fresh\nappeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted\nand adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

115-O, being\nindependent of the assessment of total income under Section 143(3) of the Act,\nmust be adjudicated in a separate appeal under Section 246A of the Act. The fresh\nappeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted\nand adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall

M/S. KHEDUT OIL TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O, -22(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Khedut Oil Traders Vs. Ito – 22(2)(1) D-403 / Godavari Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Sir P.M Road, Off Tilak Road, Lalbaug. Parel Santacruz (W), Mumbai Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk1294J (Applicant) (Respondent)

delay be condoned. The courts have consistently held that the expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to 6 M/s. Khedut Oil Traders, Mumbai enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merit. Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 states that "Any appeal or any application, other than an application

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

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

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

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

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.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal constitution so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality. 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough

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

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

ADDL CIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

115 ITR 522 (SC). 2.1. During hearing of this appeal, the ld. DR, Shri T.A. Khan, defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer and thus supported the conclusion arrived at in the assessment order. On the other hand, Shri Sunil M. Lala, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that section 14A of the Act will not apply where

ADDL CIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

115 ITR 522 (SC). 2.1. During hearing of this appeal, the ld. DR, Shri T.A. Khan, defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer and thus supported the conclusion arrived at in the assessment order. On the other hand, Shri Sunil M. Lala, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that section 14A of the Act will not apply where

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

condone the delay of 119\ndays and admit the appeal for disposing off the same on merits.\n5. Assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds in its\nappeal:\n\"1. Confirming the addition of Rs. 8,60,124/- on account of\ninterest paid on Loans borrowed for purchase of Surat Property\nwhich was given on Rent

SANJANA SANJAY KATHE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-34(3)(6), MUMBAI

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 69A of the Act. 10 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We note that the Affidavit file along with application along with condonation of delay is supported by death certificate of the father of Appellant in medical records of the father-in-law of the Appellant. In view of the explanation provided

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

condone the marginal delay\nof revenue for 8days. The appeal is taken for adjudication.\n5. Both the appeals have emanated from the single appellate order. Both the\nappeals are taken together, heard together and disposed by a common order. The\nappeals of the assessee and revenue are adjudicated separately by a common\norder.\n6. Brief facts of the case

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

115-0, being independent of the assessment of total income under Section 143(3) of the Act, must be adjudicated in a separate appeal under Section 246A of the Act. The fresh appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted and adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

115-0, being independent of the assessment of total income under Section 143(3) of the Act, must be adjudicated in a separate appeal under Section 246A of the Act. The fresh appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted and adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

115-0, being independent of the assessment of total income under Section 143(3) of the Act, must be adjudicated in a separate appeal under Section 246A of the Act. The fresh appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted and adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

115-0, being independent of the assessment of total income under Section 143(3) of the Act, must be adjudicated in a separate appeal under Section 246A of the Act. The fresh appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue shall be admitted and adjudicated on merits, and delay in filing the same shall

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 4(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

condone the delay and admit the appeal filed by the assessee. 60. Ground No. 1 relates to the claim of interest by the assessee amounting to `1,43,721/- after disallowing proportionate interest amounting to `2,12,47,194/- out of interest earned by the assessee on term deposits. Both the parties agreed that similar issue has arisen

DCIT CEN CIR 4(3) , MUMBAI vs. GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

condone the delay and admit the appeal filed by the assessee. 60. Ground No. 1 relates to the claim of interest by the assessee amounting to `1,43,721/- after disallowing proportionate interest amounting to `2,12,47,194/- out of interest earned by the assessee on term deposits. Both the parties agreed that similar issue has arisen