NARESH AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

149(1)(b) can be applied only prospectively. In assessee's can be applied only prospectively. In assessee's case when we apply this test for AY 2015 case when we apply this test for AY 2015-16, the period of 16, the period of six years has expired on 31.03.2022 and therefore the six years has expired

SHA HURGOWAN ANANDJI DESAI CHARITIES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC , BENGULURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay has been delegated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to the egated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to the egated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to the concerned Pr. Pr. Pr. Chief Chief Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner or or or Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income

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 of the Act dated 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation. The ld. AR submitted that the AO issued a notice under

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

delay is condoned to take up the matter for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 13.03.2014, reporting total income at Rs. 6,04,020/-. Information was received by the ld. A.O. from Insight portal that assessee had sold shares in the alleged penny stock scrip i.e. ACI Infocom Ltd. listed

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 4. Since in both the appeals the assessee has raised similar issues which arise out of the similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience, and are being decided by way of this consolidated order

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal.\nNow the appeal is admitted to be heard.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along\nwith other co-owners were owners of the land and thus\nentered into Development Agreement with M/s Brick Works\nTrading Pvt Ltd regarding the said land and as per the terms

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

149 (Chennai)(TM)} as referred to by Ld. CIT-DR was sought to be distinguished in the background of the fact that in the present case, the assessee has not taken any longer time to file the appeal once he was made aware of the favourable decision rendered on 28/02/2020. The Ld. AR pleaded that a liberal construction

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

GEMINI DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Through Ground No.1, the assessee pertain to the notice under section 148 being time barred as per the provisions of section 149

VIIKING MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) CENTRAL CIR4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blev. Acit – Central Circle-4(4) Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd., 604-065, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Air India Building Hiranandani Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacj9884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkant Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Ms. Richa Gulati Department Represented By :

condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal filed in Form no 36 :– “The following grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to one another – 1. The Assistant Commissioner of income-tax, Central

MR RAHAT MOHAMMED RIYAZUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

delay. Considering the said explanation of the assessee, we condone the same and direct the ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal for its meritorious adjudication. 5. The issue before us raised is on a jurisdiction of the proceedings initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional issues relate to limitation within which the impugned notice u/s.148 ought to have

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

section 22 of the Act by estimating deemed rent on unsold flats/ apartments of assessee's various projects. Thereafter allowing of Rs 12,70,41,780/- was added as 'Income from House Property'. Further, the AO recomputed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) allowable to the assessee after excluding the interest income of Rs 8,37,772/-. 4. Apropos

UMASHANKAR BHAGWATI PATWA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE (DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

149 (Chennai)(TM) is that the delay was not condoned by the ITAT on the ground that as the delay was due to negligence and in action on the part of the assessee and the assessee could have very well avoided the delay by exercise of due care and attention. Similarly, the decision of ITAT in the case

BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee had not stated facts of the case are that the assessee had not stated facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. In view

KISHOR JETHALAL MORBIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding 7. before the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual, has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 53,84,950/-. However as per the information available on record, the assessee

PJP FOUNATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. At the outset, we noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 133 days and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has 2 PJP Foundation