ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "143(2)", "147", "144", "144B", "148", "151", "124", "120", "142(1)", "142" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the cross-objection should be condoned

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

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Condonation of delay is required in case the appeal is not filed within the permissible time. It is a case where the assessee has raised additional ground. It can be raised by the assessee at any time and even for the first time before the appellate authority. This is a settled law. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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

151 of the income tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2009 1961 for assessment year 2009-10 it transpired that the 10 it transpired that the notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing officer who should not be below

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 ()

2,74,990/- only. 2.2 The Ld.AO thus had reason to believe that, assessee received bogus accommodation entry and the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act after recording reasons. Assessee was issued notice under section 148 by the jurisdictional assessing officer on 05/04/2021. The said notice was treated to be the deemed notice issued under section 148A

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

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 of the Act. The first contention of the ld. AR is that the notice under section 148 is issued

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

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

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuance of notice under section 148 in violation of provisions contained in section 151A of the Act and in violation of law laid down in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited

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

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 hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHANTILAL CHIMANLAL SHETH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross-objections by the assessee are partly allowed

2) Jaipur vs. R.K.Build Creations Private Limited (Special Leave Petition\n(Civil) Diary No(s) .59625 of 2024). For ease of reference the aforesaid order reads\nas under:\n\"Delay condoned.\nHaving regard to the concession made by the petitioner-Department in the\ncase of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on\n03.10.2024

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

2 ITA No. 3722/MUM/2024 & CO No. 165/MUM/2024 (A.Y.: 2016-17) JMP Securities Pvt Ltd Assessing Officer and hence, the same is in violation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as provided under section 151A of the Act. Thus, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is unlawful, invalid and bad in law. 4) The actions of the NFAC

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1)(2), BANGALURU

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm &\Nms Padmavathy S, Am\Ni.T.A. No. 915/Mum/2017\N(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\Nhewlett Packard Financial\Nservices (India) Pvt. Ltd.,\N24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main\Nroad, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.\Npan: Aabcc5967C\Nappellant)\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Nacit, Circle-2(1)(2),\Naayakar Bhavan,\Nvs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.\N:\N:\N:\N:\Nrespondent)\Nshri Percy Pardiwala &\Nmr. Ninad Patade, Ar\Nshri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr\N22.09.2025\N21.10.2025\Norder\Nper Padmavathy S, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 25.10.2016 For Assessment Years (Ay)\N2011-12. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:\N(I) Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation On \"Hp Indigo Digital Press\Nprinter\" @ 60% - Ground No. 1.1 To 1.7\N(Ii) Treatment Of Ceased Liability As Income U/S 41 - Ground No. 2.1 To\N2.9\N(Iii) Disallowance Of Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Ground\Nno. 3.1 To 3.9\N(Iv) Disallowance Of Provision For Tds Certificates & Addition To\Nbook Profits U/S.115Jb - Ground No.

151/-\n15,38,89,295/-\n8,79,04,436/-\n14,73,98,816/-\n30,50,17,004/-\n20,09,28,456/-\n15. The AO further noticed that the assessee did not file the return of income for\nAY 2002-03 to AY 2008-09 except for AY 2003-04 and issued a show-cause\nnotice to the assessee

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

2. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that there was a delay of 5 days in filing the present submitted that there was a delay of 5 days in filing the present submitted that there was a delay of 5 days

ITO, MUMBAI vs. HIMANSHU SARDA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito,Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Himanshu Sarda Room No. 734, Kautilya 705/706, Shivalaya Residency Chs Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Ltd., Thakur Complex, 90 Feet Mumbai-400051 Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai- 400101 Pan: Flpps9753F Appellant Respondent C.O.410/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5862/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18)

2. The registry inform that the cross-objection filed by the assessee with a delay for 37 days. The assessee explained the delay and filed the prayer for condonation of delay. We found there is sufficient cause for delay in filing the cross objection. Ld. DR had not made any objection against the submission of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay