MODERN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18th February, 2016, by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane (the learned Assessing Officer), was dismissed, as it was filed late by 191 days holding that request for condonation of delay

GIRISH G. DUBE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri C.N. Prasad

section 253(4) of the Act. Therefore, delay in filing the Cross Objection remains unexplained. In view of the above legal and factual discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 1529 days. Consequently, the impugned application for condonation of delay by the Cross Objector, Respondent is dismissed

CAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Can Properties Pvt. Ito-9(2)(1), Ltd., Shop No. 13, Lumbini Mumbai-400020 बनाम/ Palace Chs Ltd., 91, Tejpal Vs. Road, Ville Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aadcc 7832 L

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.\n7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal\nand admit the appeal for hearing.\n7.\nGround Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter\nrelated and inter connected and relates to challenging the\norder of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A)\nof the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

condone the delay of 119\ndays and admit the appeal for disposing off the same on merits.\n5. Assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds in its\nappeal:\n\"1. Confirming the addition of Rs. 8,60,124/- on account of\ninterest paid on Loans borrowed for purchase of Surat Property\nwhich was given on Rent

ANEEKA UNIVERSAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-9, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation vide order dated 29.11.2019, whereby the application filed by the Appellant ITA. No. 7115/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 seeking condonation of delay of 191

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

section 5 M/s Rallis India Ltd. ITA NO.3680/Mumbai/2016 CO NO.185/Mumbai/2016 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net realizable value are items of raw materials

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

191 no order would be passed unless it was established that the recipient has not paid the tax due. 6. The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,15,847/-. 7. The appellant submits

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. DIGVIJAY INVESTMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay and, therefore, the appeals of the assessee should be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record as also the reasons cited for the delay in filing of appeal. The appeals of the assessee are delayed by 191 days, which has been submitted to be on account of critical health conditions

DIGVIJAY INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay and, therefore, the appeals of the assessee should be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record as also the reasons cited for the delay in filing of appeal. The appeals of the assessee are delayed by 191 days, which has been submitted to be on account of critical health conditions

AARSON ENGG. CONSTRUCTION (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

condonation of delay of 384 days in filing the present appeal is thus allowed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of Engineering Contractors/labour Job had filed its return of income on 24.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.46,191/- which was processed as such