SUMITOMO CHEMICAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sumitomo Chemical India The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax- 1(3)(1), 6Th Floor, Moti Mahal, 195, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, J Tata Road, Churchgate, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaecs3750L (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay and the contents thereof read as under: “Reasons for bona fide delay 11. During the course of the Tribunal hearing against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act one of the member has enquired about filing an appeal before CIT (A) against the order passed u/s 143 (3) read with section

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

section 40A(2) of the Act. 13. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has taken into account any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has not been taken into

ITO WD 2(5), KALYAN vs. HASMUKHARAI & CO., AMBERNATH

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, merits of the addition is concerned, before adverting further, we deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts / Hon'ble Apex Court, so that we can reach to a fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held

ITO WD 2(5), KALYAN vs. HASMUKHARAI & CO., AMBERNATH

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, merits of the addition is concerned, before adverting further, we deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts / Hon'ble Apex Court, so that we can reach to a fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

delay of 94 days in filing of CO, is condoned.\n5.\nComing to Cross Objection, the Assessee has raised additional\ngrounds, such as order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is\ninvalid and bad in the eyes of law. Further, the notice under section\n143(2) of the Act has been issued by the invalid Authority and\nhence

MAYUR SHRIMANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the appeals are concerned, we have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR NAGRAJ JAIN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assessee

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

condonation of delay and allowed the counsel for the assessee to argue the case on merit. 7. The Ld. counsel submitted that reopening of assessment is bad in law as the same has been done on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department through the Directorate General of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai. The Ld. counsel relying

ELCO ARCADE RES AND NON RES. PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposesin above terms

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanelco Arcade Res & Non Res Ito 23(1)(3), Premisies Co-Operative Society Vs. Piramal Chamber, Ltd. Mumbai – 400 012 Elco Arcade, Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aaaae8544N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shripratik Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Pushkarajbhangepatil, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

delay in filing return of income has already been condoned by Ld CCIT. Hence, the Elco Arcade Res and Non Res Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow deduction

PATHARE PRABHU COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 4 Pathare Prabhu Coop Hsg Soc Ltd., AY 2012-13 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that the assessee is a co-operative housing society and filed its return of income on 07.09.2012 reporting a total Income of Rs. 2,67,471/-. Assessee claimed

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal.\nNow the appeal is admitted to be heard.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along\nwith other co-owners were owners of the land and thus\nentered into Development Agreement with M/s Brick Works\nTrading Pvt Ltd regarding the said land and as per the terms

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)

163 of the Paper Book) to his Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer of the assessee and his father is the same i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 3(2), Mumbai. Along with the said letter, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.09.2014 was also annexed. In the course of the said assessment proceedings, based on information sought by the Assessing

MARRIUM M SHAFI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarrium M.Shafi V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 803, Panchvatipanch Marg बनाम 24(2)(1), Income Tax Bldg., 6Th Off Yari Road, Versova – Floor, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400061, Maharashtra 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Azaps2406F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

163 days.He referred to Form no.35 wherein the assessee had stated that the assessee had created an e-mail ID at the time of registering the PAN on portal and had no knowledge to access the mail ID and modern system of communication and no physical communication was received from the department after filing the reply. The explanation was rejected

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

163 ITR 249 (Guj), the assessee made certain purchases from some parties and made payment through cheques, and the ITO found that parties were not available to cross examine and that payments were shown to have been made after substantial lapse of time after date of purchase, and hence the ITO held those transactions to be bogus and added back

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 4. Since in both the appeals the assessee has raised similar issues which arise out of the similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience, and are being decided by way of this consolidated order

INFINITY TOWERS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

condoning the delay and without considering the merit the appellate order was passed on ground of limitation which is gross valuation of national justice. She further argued that the assessee claimed interest earned from investment in co-operative bank Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Limited amount to Rs. 11,60,974/- and from Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

INFINITY TOWERS CO OP HSG SOC LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

condoning the delay and without considering the merit the appellate order was passed on ground of limitation which is gross valuation of national justice. She further argued that the assessee claimed interest earned from investment in co-operative bank Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Limited amount to Rs. 11,60,974/- and from Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

INFINITY TOWERS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO -22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

condoning the delay and without considering the merit the appellate order was passed on ground of limitation which is gross valuation of national justice. She further argued that the assessee claimed interest earned from investment in co-operative bank Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Limited amount to Rs. 11,60,974/- and from Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited