ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR IT PARK THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC for AY 2021-22, and it had met all conditions specified in Circular, including timely filing of income tax return, selection of taxation under section 115BAA, and electronic filing of Form No. 10 IC before deadline - Whether since assessee had fulfilled all conditions specified in said circular and had filed Form

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR, IT PARK, THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC for AY 2021-22, and it had met all conditions specified in Circular, including timely filing of income tax return, selection of taxation under section 115BAA, and electronic filing of Form No. 10 IC before deadline - Whether since assessee had fulfilled all conditions specified in said circular and had filed Form

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 5. 5.12 The Hon'ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

160 days cannot\nbe considered to be inordinate or excessive.\n3.6 Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas\nCharitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and\nfast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay\nand the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the\nCourt should exercise their

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

160 taxmann.com 657 (Surat Trib.) wherein it\nwas held that the Tribunal can condone the delay in filing Form 10AB.\nIn that case also, the provisional approval in Form 10AC issued on\n06.04.2022 for the period commencing from 06.04.2022 to AY 2025-26\nand vide circular no. 8/2022 dated 31.03.2022, the extended time for\nfiling Form 10AB was 30.09.2022, however

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

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) rejected the objections raised against rejected the objections raised against the initiation of reassessment the initiation of reassessment proceedings under

DEEPAK GOPINATH BIRJE,GOREGAON EAST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI,

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Deepak Gopinathbirje Commissioner Of Income Tax A/604, Lakshachandi Heights, Off. Gen. Vs Nfac, Delhi A.K. Vaidya Marg, Gokuldham, Mumbai – 400063. [Pan: Ahcpk6464F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 270A of the Income Tax Act) and rejected application without proper reason as even condition laid down u/s 270AA(2) are satisfied. 9. The Honourable ITAT may please be considered the filing of the appeal before Honourable ITAT delayed 172 days and delay may please be condoned (separate petition is filed). 10. Appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

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

In the result, ITA No. 860/Mum/2021 filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone delay. 11. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the AO has considered all investments whether any exempt income is received from those investments during the year or not. Accordingly to him only those investments from which the exempt income is received during the year is required to be considered for making a disallowance under Rule

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)

condone the said delay. Order for Asst. year 2007-08 4.1 For Asst. year 2007-08, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed the return of income on 24/04/2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,74,68,919/-. The Assessing Officer (AO’) determined the assessee’s income in the order of assessment

SHREE PUSHKAR CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Pushkar Chemicals & The Cit-7, Fertilizers Ltd., Room No. 611, 202, A Wing, Bldg., No. 3, Aaykar Bhavan, Rahul Mittal Industrial Estate, Vs. M.K. Road, Sir M.V. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 4000059 Pan: Aaacs9372E (Appellant) (Respondent)

160/- (rounded off), allowing deduction under chapter VI-A u/s 80IB amounting to Rs. 23,86,938/-The Ld. CIT revised the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 interest of the revenue as the AO has wrongly allowed the assessee

RAMEL AJIT SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blems. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Ramel Ajit Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward No.28(2)(1), Building No. A6, 3Rd Floor Vashi, Mumbai. Swagat Chs,Plot No. 14 Vs Nerul (W),Navi Mumbai-400706 Maharashtra

delay in filing appeal is not condoned. In support of his submission, the ld AR of the assessee relied on 6 RAMEL AJIT SINGH the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Mizuho Corporate Bank Vs ADIT in ITA No. 3282/Mum/2009 dated 26.03.2014. 6. On merit of the case, the ld AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was engaged

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 ()

condonation of 13 days delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal stands allowed. 7 ITA No. 4499/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri 6. The Ld.AR on merits submitted that Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication. 7. In Ground No.2 the assessee is challenging the notice issued

PUJYA SINDHI PANCHAYAT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Vs. Ito(E), Thane Trust Ashet It Park, Road No. Vishrali Naka, Near Kanak 162, Wagle Industrial Automobile Panvel, Raigad, Estate, Thane West, Panvel- 410206. Mumbai- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Aabtp4266E (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 143(1)(a) of the Act. At the outset, I noticed that the above ground is legal 4. in nature and goes to the roots of the case, therefore while following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Jute Corporation India

PUJYA SINDHI PANCHAYAT TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THANE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Vs. Ito(E), Thane Trust Ashet It Park, Road No. Vishrali Naka, Near Kanak 162, Wagle Industrial Automobile Panvel, Raigad, Estate, Thane West, Panvel- 410206. Mumbai- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Aabtp4266E (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 143(1)(a) of the Act. At the outset, I noticed that the above ground is legal 4. in nature and goes to the roots of the case, therefore while following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Jute Corporation India

MOTILAL LACHHMANDAS RIJHWANI,THANE vs. ITO, WD-2(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

160/- was declared as Income from Business. Since the assessee failed to pay the tax liability on the income disclosed, the application made under the Scheme was cancelled. Based on this information the AO had reason to belief that the income of assessee has escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Since the assessee

HI-ROCK CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 32 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the case was heard on merit. 10. On merit the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil contractor. The main business activities of the assessee involves taking up contract/sub- 6 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

condoned and consequentially the CO filed by the assessee is directed to be admitted for adjudication on merits. When technicalities are pitted against substantial justices, the Courts will always lean towards dispensation of justice instead of closing and shutting the doors of justice to a bonafide and genuine litigant although we are fully aware that right to appeal

PRAMOD LAXMAN BHOR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

160/- by filing its return of income on 4.12.2017, which was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter assessed vide order dated 16.12.2019 under section 143(3) read with section 144 of the Act, determining total income at Rs. 45,95620/-. 4. Subsequently, on the information that the assessee found to have deposited cash totaling