ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EVERGREEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Room No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ……………. Appellant V/S Evergreen Financial Services, Kanakia Future City, Cts 101, Behind Dr. L H Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai-400093. ……………. Respondent Pan : Aabfe 9028 R

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection by the assessee and we proceed to decide the same on merits. 7. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in assessee’s cross-objection, pertains to the validity of additions made under section 153A of the Act in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. 8. The brief facts

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

132 upon a person not referred to in Section 153A of IT Act. He submitted that this person not referred to in Section 153A of IT Act. He submitted that this person not referred to in Section 153A of IT Act. He submitted that this was an issue of law and therefore, the ITAT should have permitted

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

5, 2013 declaring total income of Rs.37,81,907/- which was processed by the AO, who by considering the relevant details filed by the Assessee as called for and observing that the Assessee has derived income from salary, capital gain and other sources, ultimately vide assessment order dated March 31, 2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A

URMI FOUNDATION,THANE vs. WX, THANE

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), vide order dated 04.10.2024. 2. It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal with a delay of 132 days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed an application for condoning

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The first contention of the ld. AR is with regard to the legal issue that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation. The ld. AR submitted that the AO issued a notice under

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 5629 & 5630/Mum/2014 (A.Y: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Central Circle-10 Vs. M/S. Keystone Realtors Room No. 802, 8Th Pvt Ltd., Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Natraj, Mv Road, Bldg, Mk Road, Junction, We Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack2499Q Appellant .. Respondent

132(1) of the Act conducted in the course of Rustomjee Evershine Group on 21.10.2010 and the assessee also was covered under search action, therefore notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2008-09 on 29.10.2011 disclosing a total income

SEMIT PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 34 , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 5. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands sister concern of the assessee named M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 06-03-2012. On the very same day, the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was initiated

SEMIT PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 34 , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 5. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands sister concern of the assessee named M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 06-03-2012. On the very same day, the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was initiated

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) rejected the objections raised against rejected the objections raised against the initiation of reassessment the initiation of reassessment proceedings under

JAY MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(5), MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jay Maharashtra Co-Op. Credit Ito 19(1)(5), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Vs. Room No. 1, Ground Floor, Shiv Parel, Bhavan, Bldg. No. 25, 4Th Mumbai-400012. Kamathipura, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008. Pan No. Aafaj 3385 B Appellant Respondent

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, i the Act. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay n the interest of substantial justice, the delay is condoned, and the appeal

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing of an additional ground is 16 years and no cogent evidence or no explanation has been filed by the assessee to justify the substantial delay of 16 years. In fact

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

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

NSK ADVISORS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has challenged the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on the ground that there was no incriminating material found and seized during the search proceeding and has also challenged the disallowance of expenses debited to profit and loss account amounting to Rs.2,89,667/- and Rs.11

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

delay. Both the appeals either cross objection or cross appeal for the respective assessment years have been delayed filed. The reasons given for late filing of appeal does not show sufficient cause on behalf of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The reason provided for the delayed filing does contain in action or negligence on the part