AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

condone the delay with such delay. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.03.2013 declaring total income of ₹.16,90,830/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA-RBO II THANE WESTERN BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2),, MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA-ISB BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA- NRI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

condonation of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The of the delay and hence not admitted the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) alternatively and without prejudice alternatively and without prejudice, following the decision following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

LIMRASS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\"] dated 30.01.2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the addition\nmade by the AO at Rs.6,58,24,976/- u/s 41(1) of the Act, was confirmed.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in\nthe business

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11(2) & 11(1) and the delayed intimation of accumulation u/s. 11(2) & 11(1) by filing of belated Form 10 may be condoned and admitted and hence the addition of Rs.14,18,78,917/- may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above Form 10 filed along with the additional grounds of appeal, with application for condonation of delay

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11(2) & 11(1) and the delayed intimation of accumulation u/s. 11(2) & 11(1) by filing of belated Form 10 may be condoned and admitted and hence the addition of Rs.14,18,78,917/- may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above Form 10 filed along with the additional grounds of appeal, with application for condonation of delay

PMI ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pmi Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle-16(1), 1501, Sorrento Veera Desai Road, 4Th Floor, 467, Aayakar Vs. Opp. Country Club, Andheri West- Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400053. Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aadcp 1031 E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing of this appeal considering the facts and circumstances causing filing of this appeal considering the facts and circumstances causing filing of this appeal considering the facts and circumstances causing such delay as mentioned in the Affidavit, duly signed by the director of such delay as mentioned in the Affidavit, duly signed by the director

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal.” B. The Ld.AR submitted that the above grounds are related to the main grounds raised in form 36 and that no new records needs to be looked into for disposing off the issue raised herein. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional

MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

138/- without considering extension of due dates. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there was no violation whatsoever of the objectives behind the introduction of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24(x), which are as under: a. penalize employers who misutilize contributions to provident fund

VIKRAM BABULAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ASSESSMENT UNIT IT DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanvikram Babulal Shah Vs. Ito Assessment Unit It 3Rd Floor, R. No. 73, Shreenathji Department Bldg, Gulalwadi 142, Kika Street, Piramal Chambers Mumbai- Maharashtra-400 004 400 012 Pan: Cdops4473E (Appellant) (Respondent)

138/- after preparing books of accounts on the basis of details available. 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in considering only the cash deposits and not the cash withdrawals while completing the assessment. 5. Reliance is placed on the following 2 case laws: a) 430ITR253 PCIT vs Shitlaben Saurabh Vora b) 2024 38 NYPTTJ1539 Kailashnath Arunkumar Dube

ST. FRANCIS DE SALES CHURCH TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT -9 (CPC), BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh() & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting 3 ITA 1996/Mum/2020 proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay