NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned. We hold so. 9 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2642 & 2643/Mum/2016 12. Insofar as the merits of the issues raised are concerned, it was a common point between the parties that the issues are fully covered by the decisions of the Tribunal dated 01/04/2016(supra) and 19/02/2016(supra

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned. We hold so. 9 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2642 & 2643/Mum/2016 12. Insofar as the merits of the issues raised are concerned, it was a common point between the parties that the issues are fully covered by the decisions of the Tribunal dated 01/04/2016(supra) and 19/02/2016(supra

PANKAJ PARASAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Pankaj Parasar Acit, Circle 11(1) 1St Floor, Plot No. 376 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Didee House, 14Th Road Mumbai 400020 Khar (W), Mumbai 400052 Pan – Aaapp9015A Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 248 days in filing this appeal. This appeal is accordingly admitted for consideration and adjudication. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Shri Pankaj Parasar 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: - 3.1 The assessee, Prop. M/s. Mazaa Films & M/s. Mazaa Productions, engaged in the production and direction of advertisement films, feature films

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 2 days in filing the aforesaid appeals by the assessee is condoned and we proceed to decide these appeals on merits. ITA no.1425/Mum./2018 Assessee’s Appeal - A.Y. 2009–10 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. D.C.I.T. of re-opening

REKHA MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condoning the delay is reversed as the appeal was filed within time. However, the Ld. CIT (A) also decided the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts are that assessee is an individual and had declared income under the head ‘income from house property’ from rent of Rs.26,00,000/- received from tenant SVIL Mines Ltd in respect of property

MULCHAND SHAMJI CHHEDA HUF ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

194A applies and no tax audit\nor TDS is required to be deducted in AY. 2016-17.\nPage | 3\nITA No. 1700/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2016-17\nMulchand Shamji Chheda HUF\nGround No. 3: Applicability of section 44AB\n(v) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is subject to tax\naudit u/s.44AB. He failed to take into consideration

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILLS vs. ANANAD RATHI COMMODITIES LIMITED, A WING , TH FLOOR,

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

delay of 22 days is condoned. 3. In both the years the issues involved are common arising out of identical set of facts and therefore, same were heard together and have been disposed of by ways of this consolidated order. For the sake of ready reference appeal for A.Y.2013-14 is taken up wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds:- “Ground

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILLS vs. ANAND RATHI COMMODITIES LIMITED, A WING, TH FLOOR,

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

delay of 22 days is condoned. 3. In both the years the issues involved are common arising out of identical set of facts and therefore, same were heard together and have been disposed of by ways of this consolidated order. For the sake of ready reference appeal for A.Y.2013-14 is taken up wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds:- “Ground

MHATRE PALACE CHSL,BORIVALI WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42 1 3 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

Delay condoned. 3. The solitary ground of appeal is the disallowance u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 2,27,780/- being the interest received from co-operative banks. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society and had filed its return of income dated 30.12.2021, declaring total income

MS. NISHA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Income

EAGLE COURIERS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1,, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

194A, 194C, 194I and 194J of the Act. The tax deducted at source has been paid to the credit of the Central Government. There is also no disallowance under section 40a of the Act for this assessment year. The assessee has filed letters with the Assessing Officer on 3rd August 2011, 16th August 2011 and 30th November 2011 giving reasons