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

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The first contention of the ld. AR is with regard to the legal issue that the notice issued under section 148

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

condonation of delay accompanied by supporting affidavit in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 Assessment Year 2017-2018 (SC). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “I. The assessment order has been set-aside in total, to be made

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

condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” ” 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submi Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submi Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that delay was not deliberate or malafide delay was not deliberate or malafide. He referred to the submissions

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], inter- alia, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. The present appeals are delayed by 144 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

ABHISHEK SANJEEV NADGERI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

condonation of 13 days delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal stands allowed. 7 ITA No. 4499/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri 6. The Ld.AR on merits submitted that Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication. 7. In Ground No.2 the assessee is challenging the notice issued

SHAMBHAVEE SHASHIKANT KADAM,ANDHERI (WEST) vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. During the course of hearing the ld. AR raised two legal contentions with regard to the notice issued under section 148

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

condonation of delay was rejected, rendering the appeal inadmissible.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 144", "Section 115BBE", "Section 147", "Section 142(1)", "Section 143(2)", "Section 148

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JMP SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 5. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the ground challenging the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) on merits. On the other hand, the assessee has filed the cross objection challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act.As the issues raised

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction as the jurisdictional requirement of section 147 to 151A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, failed to condone of delay

PRABHULAL KALJI DOSHI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

section 151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, however approval is from PCIT. The approval is not in accordance with law, therefore liable to be quashed. 2 I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2025 4. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s. 148

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

148 or section 153A relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2024 shall,— (g) in the case of a person including a company whether or not registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), required to file a return under sub-section (4A) or sub-section (4B) or sub-section

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

148 of the Act was provided to the assessee company wherein it was clearly reflected the issue on which case was reopened/s 147 of the Act. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.04.2017 and 30.07.2017 were issued to the assessee company which was duly served to the Assessee Company. In response, neither the assessee attended nor filed

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

148 of the Act, on account of being barred by limitation and consequent reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 143(3), being bad in law. 4.1 There is a delay of one day in filing the present appeal for which petition seeking condonation

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condone the delay in filing the\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A).\n4. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a company\ndealing in listed and unlisted securities. For your under\nconsideration assessee did not file any return of income and\ntherefore the Ld.AO issued notice under section 148

MARK FOODS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoning the delay in filing the appeal thereby violating the principles of natural Justice. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 81,75,025/-on account of unexplained source of income under section 68 merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. 11. In the facts