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

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

delay may kindly be condoned. 3. Before we proceed to address the respective Grounds of appeal, we may briefly refer to the background of the case. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of providing Customer interaction (customer acquisition, customer services), Back-office (Receivables management

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

delay may kindly be condoned. 3. Before we proceed to address the respective Grounds of appeal, we may briefly refer to the background of the case. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of providing Customer interaction (customer acquisition, customer services), Back-office (Receivables management

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

iii) The learned CIT(A) in Para 7. 2. 3. erred in holding that in AY 2015-16, the\ngross receipts of Interest is Rs.7,36,10,235/- and failed to take into\nconsideration that this Interest income was assessed to tax under the\nhead Income from Other Sources and not Business Income and therefore\nthe Interest income earned cannot

PALM COURT M PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

condone the delay of 329 days for filing the present appeal. 4. Grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-30 is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. When the present appeal was called for hearing, neither did anyone appear on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking an adjournment filed. From the perusal of the record, we find that in the previous six hearings also no one appeared on behalf