SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

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

159 ITR 59 (AP), Concord of Indian insurance company limited vs. Sint. Nirmaladevi & Sons (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC). However, in cases where the appellant have not come up clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the delay cannot be condoned merely because of sympathy. It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

159 ITR 59 (AP) and Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sothia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd., reported in 186 ITR 182 (Cal) had held that the subsequent decision of the Hon‟ble High Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court which changed the position, the interpretation or the understanding of law, constituted sufficient cause for condoning

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal.\nHowever, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A)\nrejected the objections raised against the initiation of reassessment\nproceedings under section 148 of the Act and sustained the\nreassessment as well as the addition made therein.\n6. Before us, the appeal has been filed in the name of the Estate

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal.\nHowever, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A)\nrejected the objections raised against the initiation of reassessment\nproceedings under section 148 of the Act and sustained the\nreassessment as well as the addition made therein.\n6. Before us, the appeal has been filed in the name of the Estate

KCA CO OPERATIVE CERDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. MUM-(197)(91), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

159/- respectively be deleted.\n10. Your Petitioner prays that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.\nPage 3\nITA No. 6585/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14\nKCA Cooperative Credit Society\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed electronically declaring income of Rs. 9,76,373/-. Intimation u/s 143(1) was issued raising

ESTATE OF LATE SUNDERLAL C. PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CPC BANGALORE, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Acit-Cpc-Bangalore, Parikh, Income Tax Officer-26(1)(4), बनाम/ Vrindavan, 33, Hatkesh Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Society, C-10, Bkc, Bandra, 5Th N.S. Road, Jvpd, Mumbai-400050 Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400056 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaae1766G "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Ms Neha Paranjape-Ar Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2018

condoning the delay, resulting into confirmation of the order of the AC-CPC, ignoring the factual matrix and not applying correct charge of tax applicable u/s 159 r.w.s 168 and further in not computing the tax in terms of section

ANIL PREMCHAND MOTIRAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, THANE , THANE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [―learned CIT(A)‖], for the assessment year 2016–17. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 159 days. In his affidavit seeking condonation

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page-4 of the paper book, pages-40 & 42 of the paper book explained that the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly invoked. The ld. counsel also filed an order u/s 7(1) of the R.T.I

AKOLA TRADING COMPANY LLP (SUCCESSOR OF AKOLA TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

159 days, ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025 has delay of 1 day. The assessee has filed applications seeking condonation of delay supported by Affidavit. It is the say of 2 ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP vs. ITO the assessee that the email-id in which the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) were communicated, belonged

AKOLA TRADING COMPANY LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

159 days, ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025 has delay of 1 day. The assessee has filed applications seeking condonation of delay supported by Affidavit. It is the say of 2 ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP vs. ITO the assessee that the email-id in which the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) were communicated, belonged

HEMANT KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT WD 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assesses appeal for Asst

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri. Amit Shukla (Jm)

159 /- was admittedly not paid by the assessee along with the return of income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case was taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 29/12/2010 wherein, the income of the assessee was determined

MAYUR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in that case after taking into consideration the facts peculiar to that case and observing that the Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, had adopted incorrect approach by not returning finding on fact. In the case of M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata [ITA No.2519/Kol/2017, common

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

delay of 150 days in filing appeal before Learned CIT(A) is condoned and the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is set aside. 8. On merits, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had submitted that the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law since the notice under

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1 PALGHAR , MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RIZVI LAND DEVELOPMENTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s Rizvi Land Development Pvt. Ltd. filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring the total income of Rs. 9,28,09,526/-. The return was assessed u/s 143 (3) of the Act. 2. Subsequently