KETAN V. SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal late beyond period of limitation as stipulated u/s 249(2) in first round of litigation vide

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

condonation of delay filed along with the present appeal explained the circumstances in which the present appeal was filed after the delay of 363 days. Subsequently, vide order sheet dated 13/10/2023, the present appeal was directed to be listed for clarification regarding certain factual aspects pertaining to the claim of the assessee regarding non–taxability of income in India

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

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

SEMIT PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 34 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 5. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands sister concern of the assessee named M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 06-03-2012. On the very same day, the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was initiated

SEMIT PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 34 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 5. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands sister concern of the assessee named M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 06-03-2012. On the very same day, the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was initiated