DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

145 clearly provides for determination of the business income on the basis of the method of accounting being regularly followed, with the mandate of sec 36(l)(iii) being also satisfied, and toward which the assessee relies on the decision in the case of CIT vs Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd(supra). The same also clarifies that the interest cost

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

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

AJIT METAL SYNDICATE,MUMBAI - GULALWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI LALBAUG

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm M/S Ajit Metal Syndicate Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19 (1) (1) 123, Kika Street Gulalwadi Piramal Chambers Mumbai – 4 Lal Baug Parel Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafa1651M Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajnish Yadav , Sr Dr

section 145 of the act and thereafter determined profit at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. When the appeal was filed before the learned CIT – A, it was delayed by 1669 days, the delay explained by the assessee was not found to be sufficient for condoning

PINKAL DILIP BHANSALI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

delay being being being unintentional unintentional unintentional and and and supported supported supported by by by bona bona bona fide fide fide Pinkal Dilip Bhansali circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication

RUDRAPRATAP TRIPATHI ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS)-II, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1730/Mum/2020 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cir-3, Rudra Pratap Tripathi R. No. 2, B-Wing, 6Th Prop. M/S Indian Corporation, Floor, Ashar It Park, 502, Modi House, 5Th Floor बनाम/ Road No. 16, Wagle Indl. Opp. Rto Office Vs. Estate, Thane, Eastern Express Highway, Maharashtra, Thane West, Maharashtra Pin-400 604 Pin-400 602 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Actpt0115A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. K. Garg, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal (filed by the assessee) on merits thereof. 8. During the course of hearing on 12.07.2022, the Ld. (counsel for the appellant in so far as grounds no.1 and 2 which relate to challenge to selection of case for scrutiny assessment under computer aided scheme (CASS

SULTAN SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

condonation application was also filed before a wrong forum. 12. In these circumstances, the appellant asked Mr. Bharat Kumar to do needful for assessment matters. He was informed that there was delay of 1368 days in filing of appeal your honour. 13. In the chart given below reasons for the above delay have been explained – Particular Date Remark Delay Assessment

SULTAN SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

condonation application was also filed before a wrong forum. 12. In these circumstances, the appellant asked Mr. Bharat Kumar to do needful for assessment matters. He was informed that there was delay of 1368 days in filing of appeal your honour. 13. In the chart given below reasons for the above delay have been explained – Particular Date Remark Delay Assessment

DCIT RG 16(3), MUMBAI vs. B ARVINDKUMAR & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

delay is not condoned. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. Coming to ITA No. 5899/Mum/2009 of Revenue’s appeal and Cross Appeal of assessee in ITA No. 5979/Mum/2009. The only issue in these cross appeals, of assessee and Revenue, is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting / applying the gross profit rate at 8.68% as against

B. ARVINDKUMAR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 16(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

delay is not condoned. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. Coming to ITA No. 5899/Mum/2009 of Revenue’s appeal and Cross Appeal of assessee in ITA No. 5979/Mum/2009. The only issue in these cross appeals, of assessee and Revenue, is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting / applying the gross profit rate at 8.68% as against

B. ARVINDKUMAR & CO.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

delay is not condoned. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. Coming to ITA No. 5899/Mum/2009 of Revenue’s appeal and Cross Appeal of assessee in ITA No. 5979/Mum/2009. The only issue in these cross appeals, of assessee and Revenue, is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting / applying the gross profit rate at 8.68% as against

HITESH PAWANRAJ MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-19(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

145(3) of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in making an addition of 12.5% on account of non-genuine purchases of Rs. 28,34,634/-. On the basis of third party information 7. The Id.CIT(A)(F) erred in passing ex-parte order

JAYSHREE CHANDRASINGH KABALI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 27 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

145 and 144/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayashree Chandrasingh Deputy Commissioner of Kabali Income Tax, Circle 27(1), 402, Spectrum, Navi Mumbai M.P. Vaidya Road, Vs. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400 077 (PAN : AGFPK7084D) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, CA Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement

JAYSHREE CHANDRASINGH KABALI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 27 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

145 and 144/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayashree Chandrasingh Deputy Commissioner of Kabali Income Tax, Circle 27(1), 402, Spectrum, Navi Mumbai M.P. Vaidya Road, Vs. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400 077 (PAN : AGFPK7084D) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, CA Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from Section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross