OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

117 days. 9) That we have no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal.” 3. Ld. DR objected for the condonation of delay and however, she has not filed any submissions against the affidavit as well as the facts described in the above affidavit. 4. Considered the submissions of both parties

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

117 days. 9) That we have no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal.” 3. Ld. DR objected for the condonation of delay and however, she has not filed any submissions against the affidavit as well as the facts described in the above affidavit. 4. Considered the submissions of both parties

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

delay in filing of cross-objection stands condoned and the cross- objection is admitted. 9. Grounds of Cross-Objections 9.1 The ground raised in the cross-objection read as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent prays that deduction of Education Cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax ought to have been allowed

AWAAZ FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT TRUST CIRCLE/CPC, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1924/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit, Trust Circle/Cpc, Awaaz Foundation, Mtnl Building, Peddar C/O- Sumaira Abdulali, 3, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 026 Reshma Apartment, 13 Pali Vs. Hill Road, Near Petit School, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabta8994Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.07.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Intimation U/S 143(1) For Ay 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

117/- and claim was on this amount only. Assessee applied for rectification which was also rejected by CPC vide order dated 20.04.2022. 4. Further, assessee filed the appeal before Ld. First Appellate Authority requesting to condone the filing in Form 10B. Ld. CIT(A) referred to the CBDT circular No. 2 of 2020 dated 30.01.2020 wherein it has been stated

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

TCL INDIA HOLDINGS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No.4912/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Tcl India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Town Centre Ii, 202/203 A&B, Income Tax – Circle 8(3), 2Nd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Room No. 204, Aaykar Bhavan, Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400059 Mumbai - 400020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct9975D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

117 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. DR further submitted that the application for condonation, though accompanied by affidavit, does not disclose any reasonable cause to condone the delay, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 5. We have gone through the application as well as the affidavit sworn by Mr. Ajit Singh Rohtas Singh Chouhan

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

SUNNY MADHUKAR BHAGAT,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid\nobservations

delay of 404 days\ninvolved in the present appeal is condoned.\n6.\nThe brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a non-filer during\nthe year under consideration. On a perusal of the Individual transaction\nstatement (ITS) in the case of the assessee for the year under\nconsideration, the following information was gathered:\nSr.\nNo.\n1.\nF.Y

SHAILESH R. SOMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3) (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1455/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) Shailelsh R. Somani, B/307, Indraprastha Ii, Jitendra Road, Malad (E), Mumbai 400 097 Pan: Anwps-2126-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer Wd 19(3)(3), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Advocate With C.A H.K Chheda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Pariasamy सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

117 taxmann.com 66(SC)] extended the time for filing of the appeals. Thus, in view of the above, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 7. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous

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)

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page-4 of the paper book, pages-40 & 42 of the paper book explained that the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly invoked. The ld. counsel also filed an order u/s 7(1) of the R.T.I

DESTIMONEY INDIA SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the both the appeals filed by the assessee is hereby

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3055/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney India Services The Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 6 Vs. Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Sahjeevan Chs, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd1326K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3056/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney Enterprises The Commissioner Of Ltd. (Formerly Known As Income Tax – 6 Vs. Destimoney Enterprises Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhavan, Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Sahjeevan Chs, N.M.Joshi Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd5100F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Kotadia Department By: Shri P. R. Ghosh

117/- was also A.Y. 2011-12 considered “benefit” as it was not paid because of conversion and addition was made. The assessee being aggrieved filed the rectification application u/s.154 of the Act dated 28.04.2014 and in view of the rectification application, the Assessing Officer settled the issue regarding set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.18,16,28,888/- against assessed

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay of 117 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 5. The facts emerging from the record are that the Assessee is a Co-operative Society registered under Maharashtra Societies Act, 1960. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessment under Section

SAHARSH LAXMIRATAN DAGA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

117, Kautilya Bhavan, Andheri West, Mumbai. BKC, Bandra East, [PAN:AENPD9975L] Mumbai. (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Aditya Maheswari, Respondent by Sh.Tejinder Pal Singh, (Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.10.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless

GETINGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

117/- 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting the allowance of Rs. 2,14,265 which was erroneously disallowed by the Appellant. 3. Ground 3: Disallowance of management fees and IT cost amounting to Rs. 76,85,446 under normal provisions of the Act. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANUP AJAY DANDAPAT,NALLASOPARA vs. ITO WARD 4(1), THANE

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

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

117 days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee had filed an affidavit for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay and we therefore condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal. Anup Ajay Dandapat 3. The assessee has raised

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

117,609 and claimed ₹.174,942 being incurred for business. Assessing Officer disallowed entire claim of ₹.174,942. 14. Assessee paid donation ₹.40,000 and claimed deduction under section 80G. Assessing Officer has not granted said deduction. 8 C.O. No. 11/MUM/2022 Shri VikramBaijnath Agarwal 15. Assessee made cash sales each below ₹. 2 Lakhs. Assessing Officer observed that these sales were