NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. The appellant creaves leave to add, modify and or withdraw The appellant creaves leave

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. 3.10 On these given facts where it is coming out clearly that the appeal has apparently shown that the appeal has been filed against the order passed under section 144

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. 3.10 On these given facts where it is coming out clearly that the appeal has apparently shown that the appeal has been filed against the order passed under section 144

SHREE SWAMY SAMARTH PRASSANA OSHIWARA (E) UNITS CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(3), 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 () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

section 144, the assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for delay were not disclosed correctly and therefore could not delay were not disclosed correctly and therefore could not delay were not disclosed correctly and therefore could

VINAYA PRASANNA KULKARNI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), 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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The petition of the 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The petition of the 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The petition of the appellant regarding late filing of appeal is carefully considered appellant regarding late filing of appeal is carefully

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

144", "Section 115BBE", "Section 147", "Section 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

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

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

144 of the Act and added the sum of ₹25,56,500/- as unexplained cash credit u as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the nder Section 68 of the Act by order dated 29.03.2022. Act by order dated 29.03.2022. 2.2 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned The assessee carried the matter in appeal before

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

section 144 of the Act as the assessee did not comply to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Though, appeals were preferred against the aforesaid assessment orders before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he also dismissed the appeals in limine on the ground of delay of 189 days in filing both the appeals. 22. While dealing with similar issue

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

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 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,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- 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

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