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

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

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 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

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

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

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

ORICON ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

124 (Ker.). "We are of the view that it is not necessary in all cases to give evidence regarding the delay in filing appeals. The affidavits are documents of evidence. On the basis of the affidavits, if the Court is satisfied that sufficient explanation has been given for condoning delay, then the affidavit can be accepted as evidence. If proof

ACCESS DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.600/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Office No. 15, Floor- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mezzanine, Laxmidas Mumbai-400020. Khimji Market, 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vitthalwadi, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0551C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2366 Days [I.E, Six (6) Years & 05 Months] In Filing Of This Appeal Before This Tribunal. 3. First Of All Will Deal With The Application Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Manish Panwar For Condonation Of In-Ordinate Delay. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Gold Bullion & Bars. For The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income After Declaring Loss Of Rs. (8,932)/- On 27.09.2012. The Return Of Income Was Initially Processed U/S.143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny.

3 SOT 822 (AHD.), the facts were that the assessee moved an application under section 154, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the said order was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of more than 6 months. The assessee explained that the delay was on account of earthquake and ill health