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

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

ACADEMY FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

delay in filing the appeal as reasonable, bonafide and sufficient, the same is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, it appears from the assessment order that the Assessee is dealing in education services and as per information received in the Revenue Department the Assessee during the year under consideration had accumulated and incurred losses but still issued

PENINSULA LAND LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as that of the revenue are dismissed

142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 01/03/2019 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had already filed a declaration under ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes