ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing of an additional ground is 16 years and no cogent evidence or no explanation has been filed by the assessee to justify the substantial delay of 16 years. In fact

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

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

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

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section

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

VIVEK MEHROTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. 2. Ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A): i) As per Form 35 dated 24/1/2017 are related to addition /disallowance u/s 80IC,14A,69A: At any juncture either at the time of filing appeal or even

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 5. We find that the Revenue had raised only one ground before us challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of set off of long term capital gain of Rs.2,97,37,203/- on sale of immovable property against brought forward

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

section 234A, 234B and 234C of IT. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 12. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the delay 74 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the delay was owing to the Corona Virus pandemic. Hence

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

153A of the Act but not under Section 153C of the Act, hence even otherwise any incriminating document found during the search of VPPL and VIPL (3rd person) but not the Assessee, has no relevance, until and unless the assessment proceedings have been initiated under Section 153C of the Act by following the due procedure of law, as enshrined

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

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

condonation of delay in appeal of revenue; therefore, said ground of appeal may be dismissed. Considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, ground no. 1 of the C.O. is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 2 & 3 relates to validity of assessment order passed against non- existing entity. The assessing officer passed assessment order in the name of Prestige Holiday

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

condonation of delay in appeal of revenue; therefore, said ground of appeal may be dismissed. Considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, ground no. 1 of the C.O. is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 2 & 3 relates to validity of assessment order passed against non- existing entity. The assessing officer passed assessment order in the name of Prestige Holiday

BHAVESH GHANSHYAM ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTL TAX)-1,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

condoned the delay with a direction to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. Against this order of ITAT, Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) vide M.A. No. 126/Mum/2019 under section 254(2) of the Act. In its M.A., Department raised the ground that order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable