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

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), 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

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

ASHOK PANDURANG GAIKWAD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

condone the delay and admit the appeal for disposal on merit. I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 5. The issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against the invocation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee by directing the AO to add contract payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on which

ASHOK PANDURANG GAIKWAD,AMBERNATH vs. CIT -III, THANE

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

condone the delay and admit the appeal for disposal on merit. I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 5. The issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against the invocation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee by directing the AO to add contract payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on which

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

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

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. | ITA No. | Assessment year | Appeal by | No. of days delay ---|---|---|---|--- 1. | 2980/Mum/2024 | 2014-15 | Revenue | 18 2. | 2979/Mum/2024 | 2015-16 | Revenue | 18 3. | 2049/Mum/2023 | 2016-17 | Revenue | 1 4. | 2046/Mum/2023 | 2017-18 | Revenue

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

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 the delay and therefore the learned CIT – A did not condoned

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

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue