IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

condonation of delay of 123 days in filing this appeal late by the assessee beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). We admit this appeal in ITA no. 4896/Mum/2015 for AY 2008-09 which was filed late by the assesee by 123 days than the time prescribed u/s 253(3). We order accordingly. Appeal No. ITA no. 2135/Mum/2013-Assessment Year

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

condonation of delay of 123 days in filing this appeal late by the assessee beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). We admit this appeal in ITA no. 4896/Mum/2015 for AY 2008-09 which was filed late by the assesee by 123 days than the time prescribed u/s 253(3). We order accordingly. Appeal No. ITA no. 2135/Mum/2013-Assessment Year

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

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 4. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which is purely legal and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), the same should be admitted

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's contention of being an NRI and not frequently accessing the portal was deemed to reflect a lack of due diligence and negligence. Therefore, the request for condonation of delay was rejected, rendering the appeal inadmissible.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 144", "Section 115BBE", "Section

CADMATIC OY,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee received an amount Rs.3,91,30,966, Cadmatic OY ITA no.540/Mum./2023 from the sale of software to its clients who are Indian companies. On the said payment, tax amounting to Rs.40,70,007, was withheld by the Indian companies while

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

3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every Page No. | 4 ITA NOs. 6915 & 6916/MUM/2017 M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Pvt. Ltd., hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical

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

3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every Page No. | 4 ITA NOs. 6915 & 6916/MUM/2017 M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Pvt. Ltd., hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "143(2)", "147", "144", "144B", "148", "151", "124", "120", "142(1)", "142" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the cross-objection should be condoned

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

142 Taxman 79 (Mag)(Kol)(Trib) in support and contended that even on estimate basis if provision for warranty was made by the assessee company following mercantile system of accounting, the expenditure was allowable expenditure and the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prayed that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act should be dropped

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

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

142(1) of the Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) was issued to the assessee on 3 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd 08.03.2018 calling for filing a true and correct return of income for assessment year under consideration but no compliance was made on the part of the assessee and therefore assessment was completed said