CADMATIC OY,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 5.3 From the above it is evident that once draft assessment order has been issued in the case of eligible assessee and the assessee files objections before

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered

AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

ii) That the aggrieved by the aforesaid both the additions appeal was contested before CIT(A)- 41, Mumbai u/s.250 Of the Act wherein the 1st addition of Rs 1,90,000 was deleted whereas the 2nd addition was confirmed, vide order CIT(A)-41/IT/152/16-17 dated 23.05.2018, distinguishing the order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, relied upon

MR GANESH ANANDRAO INGULKAR ,MUMABI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleganesh Anandrao Ingulkar V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Centralized Processing Center B/502, Shivram Park Income Tax Department Opp. Ashok Kedare Chowk Bengaluru, Karnataka-560500 Tembipada Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai - 400078 Pan: Aappi6881C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAPGEMINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 55, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds pressed during the course of hearing by Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant invited our attention to the Ground No. 16 and 17 raised as additional ground

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/MUM/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistica...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result, the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid\nappeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of\ngrounds of appeal raised therein.\n4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee,\nemerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group,\nhaving identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore,\nthese appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

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)

condoned the delay. 4. Now, coming to issue No. 1&2 in which the assessee took the plea of limitation. It is the argument of the representative of the assessee that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.9.2003, which was served upon the assessee on 24.9.2003 and the proceedings

HATHWAY C NET P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hathway C-Net Private The Tax Recovery Officer Limited, Rahejas, 4Th Floor, (Tds)-1 Smt. K.G. Mittal बिधम/ Corners Of Main Avenue & Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. V.P. Road, Santa Cruz (West) Charni Road-(West), Mumbai- 400054 Mumbai-400 002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaach8338K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

condone the delay of 658 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 9. We shall now advert to the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short P a g e | 11 ITA No. 4112/Mum/2016 AY: 2003-04 Hathway C-Net Private Ltd. Vs. TRO (TDS) „A.R‟) for the assessee

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid appeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of grounds of appeal raised therein. 4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee, emerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group, having identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore, these appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing of aforesaid appeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of grounds of appeal raised therein. 4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee, emerging from search and seizure action on Allana Group, having identical, interconnected and interwoven facts, therefore, these appeals, for the sake of brevity are heard together