GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

142(1) of the Act. In response to the statutory notices, assessee furnished various requisite details as called for. As there was international transaction between assessee and associated enterprises that exceeded the threshold limit, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arms-length price of the international transaction. The Ld. TPO after considering various 4 Getinge

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

142(1)", "Section 143(2)", "Section 148", "Section 249", "Section 270AA", "Section 201", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal was condoned

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

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

condoning the delay as under: “I, Hitesh Suresh Jadhav, at present residing at House No. 100, Near TDC Bank, Post-Kalher, Taluka Bhiwandi, District-Thane -421302, hereby solemnly state, declare and affirm as follows: 1. I (the assessee) am a resident of India and assessed to income tax under PAN-ANHPJ8829N in India. 2. I am a small civil contractor

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

142 or section 148 or section 153A relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2024 shall,— (g) in the case of a person including a company whether or not registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), required to file a return under sub-section (4A) or sub-section

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

142(1) of the Act therein clearly mentioned that no adjournment will be granted. Despite it is gathered from the record that neither assessee company attended on the specific date i.e 30.12.2014 nor filed any submission in support of his claim." ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 6.4.2 I find from the report

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

condone this delay both i.e. the meritorious proposition justifying admission of this belated appeal and the reasonable cause which has prevented in filing the appeal belatedly which were not disputed nor found frivolous, thus the delay was not held as deliberate or as a result of negligence and hence ought to have decided on merit as the issue was similar

SHRI KHANDESHWAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

condoned, and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on its merits. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 13,96,500/- made by the Ld. AO u/s. 69A of the Act. Your appellant

BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(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 Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito-Mum-W(443)(1), 411, Kewal Indl. Estate, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Karve, Road, New Marine Mumbai-400013. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaapz 0864 D Appellant Respondent

Section 68 of the Act to establish the nature and source of the cash credits. The explanation offered in grounds of appeal of the cash credits. The explanation offered in grounds of ap of the cash credits. The explanation offered in grounds of ap was found unsubstantiated, and even the plea of violation of was found unsubstantiated, and even

MR. NARESH TOPANDAS AIDASANI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC,DELHI/ DCIT-27(2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

142(1) of the Act was also issued\nand duly served upon the assessee. The Ld. AO finalize the assessment\nproceedings by making addition to the tune of Rs. 58,44,389/- and has\nassessed at Rs. 1,53,38,090/-. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty\nproceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended and filed the information. 4. Meantime, Revenue preferred appeal before Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the order passed by the ITAT and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided the issue vide order in Income Tax Appeal

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended and filed the information. 4. Meantime, Revenue preferred appeal before Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the order passed by the ITAT and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided the issue vide order in Income Tax Appeal

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

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

142(1) of the Income 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued calling upon 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued calling upon 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the source of such cash deposits. xplain the source of such cash deposits. xplain the source of such