ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal.” B. The Ld.AR submitted that the above grounds are related to the main grounds raised in form 36 and that no new records needs to be looked into for disposing off the issue raised herein. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

VASHISHTHA LUXURY FASHION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTER, BENGALURU,

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act which according to the Ld. CIT(A) is the criteria for availing the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act and only then the 7 Vashishtha Luxury Fashion Limited condonation of delay in filing form 10IC could be granted. The Ld. CIT(A) hence, rejected the assessee’s claim that the return was filed belatedly

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

delay is hereby condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: “On facts and circumstances of the case

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

delay is hereby condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: “On facts and circumstances of the case

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

delay is hereby condoned and all the\nappeals are admitted for adjudication.\n3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No.\n3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of\nconvenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following\nground of appeal:\n“On facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1 pertaining to disallowance under section 14A is identical to AY 2016- 17. Therefore, our decision with regard to this issue as adjudicated in AY 2016-17 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly, we allowed the ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Appeal Condonation of delay

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1 pertaining to disallowance under section 14A is identical to AY 2016- 17. Therefore, our decision with regard to this issue as adjudicated in AY 2016-17 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly, we allowed the ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Appeal Condonation of delay

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1 pertaining to disallowance under section 14A is identical to AY 2016- 17. Therefore, our decision with regard to this issue as adjudicated in AY 2016-17 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly, we allowed the ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Appeal Condonation of delay

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1 pertaining to disallowance under section 14A is identical to AY 2016- 17. Therefore, our decision with regard to this issue as adjudicated in AY 2016-17 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly, we allowed the ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Appeal Condonation of delay

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1 pertaining to disallowance under section 14A is identical to AY 2016- 17. Therefore, our decision with regard to this issue as adjudicated in AY 2016-17 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly, we allowed the ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Appeal Condonation of delay

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1 pertaining to disallowance under section 14A is identical to AY 2016- 17. Therefore, our decision with regard to this issue as adjudicated in AY 2016-17 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly, we allowed the ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Appeal Condonation of delay

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

164/- was filed on 01/10/2010. A search and seizure action 3 Kapstone Construction Pvt Ltd ITA 5631/Mum/2014 ITA 2822/Mum/2019 ITA 3003/Mum/2019 ITA 1946/Mum/2022 CO 175/Mum/2018 CO 17/Mum/2023 under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of Rustomjee – Evershine group on 21/10/2010 and assessee’s case was also covered in the said search action. The assessee

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

164/- was filed on 01/10/2010. A search and seizure action 3 Kapstone Construction Pvt Ltd ITA 5631/Mum/2014 ITA 2822/Mum/2019 ITA 3003/Mum/2019 ITA 1946/Mum/2022 CO 175/Mum/2018 CO 17/Mum/2023 under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of Rustomjee – Evershine group on 21/10/2010 and assessee’s case was also covered in the said search action. The assessee

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

164/- was filed on 01/10/2010. A search and seizure action 3 Kapstone Construction Pvt Ltd ITA 5631/Mum/2014 ITA 2822/Mum/2019 ITA 3003/Mum/2019 ITA 1946/Mum/2022 CO 175/Mum/2018 CO 17/Mum/2023 under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of Rustomjee – Evershine group on 21/10/2010 and assessee’s case was also covered in the said search action. The assessee

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

164/- was filed on 01/10/2010. A search and seizure action 3 Kapstone Construction Pvt Ltd ITA 5631/Mum/2014 ITA 2822/Mum/2019 ITA 3003/Mum/2019 ITA 1946/Mum/2022 CO 175/Mum/2018 CO 17/Mum/2023 under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of Rustomjee – Evershine group on 21/10/2010 and assessee’s case was also covered in the said search action. The assessee