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

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

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

Section 143(1) of the Act resulting into a huge tax demand of 143(1) of the Act resulting into a huge tax demand of 143(1) of the Act resulting into a huge tax demand of Rs.74,10140/ Rs.74,10140/- without giving any opportunity of being heard to without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant Trust

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

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

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

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

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

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 as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansar (Civil Appeal

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

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

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

b) The appellant submits that the TDS provisions are mere machinery provisions to enable collection of tax. The payees would have included the payments made by the appellant as part of their income on which taxes would have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act and accordingly, provisions of section 201(1) ought not to apply

SAPANA RAJENDRA KUMAR MARATHE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,48,47,992/- as hardship allowance along with a new flat in the newly developed building in lieu of her old flat. Since the assessee has not offered the monetary consideration received, the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. In view of the decision

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. However, Ld. CIT(A) remitted back the case to the file of AO for a de- 4 PJP Foundation Trust, Mumbai. novo assessment order, without deciding the legal ground raised by the assessee. 5. As per the facts of the present case the order of assessment was passed

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

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