NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

124 under section 234A of the IT Act alth under section 234A of the IT Act although the return of income was ough the return of income was filed within the due date. filed within the due date. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A The Appellant

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

124 under section 234A of the IT Act alth under section 234A of the IT Act although the return of income was ough the return of income was filed within the due date. filed within the due date. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A The Appellant prays that the aforesaid interest under section 234A The Appellant

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "143(2)", "147", "144", "144B", "148", "151", "124", "120", "142(1)", "142" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the cross-objection should be condoned

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 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 u/s 124

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 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 u/s 124

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), 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 u/s 124

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 u/s 124

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 u/s 124

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 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 u/s 124

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 u/s 124

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 u/s 124

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

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

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

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

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

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

3 ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar the assessee was delayed by 280 days even after the assessee was delayed by 280 days even after excluding the delay of 124 excluding the delay of 124 days pertaining to COVID period. days pertaining to COVID period. The ld.CIT(A) after taking into account The ld.CIT

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

3 ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar the assessee was delayed by 280 days even after the assessee was delayed by 280 days even after excluding the delay of 124 excluding the delay of 124 days pertaining to COVID period. days pertaining to COVID period. The ld.CIT(A) after taking into account The ld.CIT

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BKC, MUMBAI vs. SVADESHI ENTERPRISES (MUMBAI), FORT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed\nwhile the CO of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay and we\nPage 5\nITA No. 5865/Mum/2024\nCO No. 168/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nSvadeshi Enterprises, Mumbai\ntake up assessee's Cross Objection in C.O. No. 168/Mum/2024\nfirst, as it has a bearing on the very validity of the assessment order.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return\nof income

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

condone the said delay. 4. Since the issues are common and connected, the appeals were heard together. These are being consolidated and hence disposed of together by this common order. 5. We note that for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2009-10 (except assessment year 2007-08) are appeals which were already adjudicated by the Tribunal vide order dated

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions