SHABANA KAIZER JANGBARWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-42(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurpose

condoned by the CIT(A). The assessee's explanation for the delay, due to email going to the spam folder, was considered justifiable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found it fit to remand the issue back to the AO for a denovo assessment.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250", "249(2)", "147", "69", "69C", "144A

NOOR MOHAMMED HASAN MOHAMMED KHAN,MAZHAR CHAWL vs. WARD 26(2)(3), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2 Ms. Noor Mohammed Hasan Mohammed Khan 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 50 days in filing the instant appeal. The Assessee in the context of delay, by filing a petition along with the affidavit, has submitted

BOMBAY TYRES,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

144A dated 28th June, 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the merits of the case. 2 Bombay Tyres AY 2017-18 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in confirming the additions in respect of PAN AAGCB1604E which pertains to a non-existent entity. Therefore, any proceedings

SHREE D.K. ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

condone the delay of 112 days and admit the appeal for hearing. I.T.A. No.5659/Mum/2016 2 Assessment year:2011-12 3. The only issue involved in various grounds taken by the assessee is that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cancelling the assessment order and directing the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment as per the direction

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of revision order as under: 1. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 263 and the consequential order are barred by limitation. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw

BASILIA CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,THANE vs. CIT(APPEALS), CIRCLE 1, THANE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 AY 2018-19 Basilia Coop. Housing Society Vs. CIT(A) Thane 3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Basic grievance of the assessee is against ex-parte disposal of its appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard that too through a non- speaking order

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

144A; (ii) an order made by the [Joint] Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner