SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

KESARAM CHATARARAMJI CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(21)(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 Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

133(6) of the Act. Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary 3. On examination of the bank statements, the Assessing Officer On examination of the bank statements, the Assessing Officer On examination of the bank statements, the Assessing Officer observed that cash aggregating to ₹26,51,401/– had been deposited observed that cash aggregating to had been deposited

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

delay is condoned. Now adverting the hear the plea of ld CIT-DR for the revenue on merits. 27. On ground no. 1 which relates to addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the relevant financial year, the assessee entered into transaction of purchase of time share weeks

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

delay is condoned. Now adverting the hear the plea of ld CIT-DR for the revenue on merits. 27. On ground no. 1 which relates to addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the relevant financial year, the assessee entered into transaction of purchase of time share weeks

KELVIN AIR CONDITIONING AND VENTILATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 10(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

condone the delay for filing appeal for 287 days. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company, engaged in business of installation of air conditioner and ventilation systems. The assessee filed the return under section 139 (1) by declaring total income of Rs.6,81,000/-. The return was processed under section

MAHENDRAKUMAR DANMAL MUTHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in\nterms indicated hereinabove

delay\nwas deliberate or that the assessee stood to gain by postponing\nthe filing of the appeal. The explanation, in our considered view,\nconstitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause within the meaning\nof law.\n5. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the\ncase, and in order to advance substantial justice, we condone the\ndelay of 356 days

RAHUL GANGARAM KANAGANDULA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula 203, Vikas Darshan, Income Tax Officer, Shankar Puppala Road, Ward 20(3)(1) 12Th Lane Nagpada, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alepk1983F

133(6) of the Act was issued to the ICICI bank for obtaining the bank statement wherein it was found that assessee has not disclosed any income arising out of import and subsequent sale. Further, cash deposit amounting to ₹50 lacs were appearing in the bank statement of the assessee. The assessee was issued show cause notice six times

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

delay of 763 days 763 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication on merits 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

delay of 763 days 763 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication on merits 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case

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 ()

133(6) was attempted in respect of the donee Trust; however, the notice was returned unserved with th notice was returned unserved with the remark “Trust left”. e remark “Trust left”. Accordingly, the assessee was required to discharge its onus of Accordingly, the assessee was required to discharge its onus of Accordingly, the assessee was required to discharge its onus

MAHENDRA MAMTORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrii T A. No. 1119/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2011-12)

section 147 of the IT Act except merely relying on the report and hence the re-opening of the assessment was bad in law and against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have erred in making an addition

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

delay is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee had declared her income at Rs.7,39,507/- by filing return of income on dated 22.10.2020 for the AY under consideration and during the assessment year under consideration, the Assessee had purchased a property on a consideration of Rs.72

LATE SHARMISHTA MAFATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX (A), NFAC , DELHI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condoned the delay of 9 days in filing the present Appeal as the Assessee has reasonable cause for not filing the Appeal within limitation. We now proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. We note that the order, dated 14/09/2023, passed by the CIT(A), has been challenged on following grounds: 1(a) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

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