SHREE JALARAM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us, which are as under:- 1. In the Facts and Circumstances of the Appellant's case and in Law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance/addition

DINESH KUMAR RAJENDRA SINGH,MALAD EAST MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

194I of the Income Tax Act 1961, for making additions to income though these are TDS provisions applicable to payers and not charging sections applicable to the Appellant. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the contention of the Ld. AO where the Ld. AO erred in adding rental income and contract receipt amounting to Rs.87

CANARA BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and that of SAs stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1742 To 1745/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13) Canara Bank, Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) 1(1), 8Th Floor,R.No.802, Premises & Estate Section, Circle Office, 2Nd Floor, Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic C-14,G-Block,Opp.Petrolpump Hospital Building, Charni Road, B-K-C, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400051 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent ..

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017 4. Brief facts of the case are that on the information received, the assessee has paid lease premium to Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. The AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessee

CANARA BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and that of SAs stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1742 To 1745/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13) Canara Bank, Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) 1(1), 8Th Floor,R.No.802, Premises & Estate Section, Circle Office, 2Nd Floor, Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic C-14,G-Block,Opp.Petrolpump Hospital Building, Charni Road, B-K-C, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400051 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent ..

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017 4. Brief facts of the case are that on the information received, the assessee has paid lease premium to Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. The AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessee

CANARA BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and that of SAs stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1742 To 1745/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13) Canara Bank, Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) 1(1), 8Th Floor,R.No.802, Premises & Estate Section, Circle Office, 2Nd Floor, Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic C-14,G-Block,Opp.Petrolpump Hospital Building, Charni Road, B-K-C, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400051 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent ..

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017 4. Brief facts of the case are that on the information received, the assessee has paid lease premium to Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. The AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessee

CANARA BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and that of SAs stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1742 To 1745/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13) Canara Bank, Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) 1(1), 8Th Floor,R.No.802, Premises & Estate Section, Circle Office, 2Nd Floor, Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic C-14,G-Block,Opp.Petrolpump Hospital Building, Charni Road, B-K-C, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400051 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent ..

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017 4. Brief facts of the case are that on the information received, the assessee has paid lease premium to Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. The AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessee

SANDEEP CHAMPAKLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Delay condoned. Sandeep Champaklal Shah 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact by not appreciating that the Ld. A.O. has passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without which is bad in law and illegal

LEWIS FAMILY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal of the assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1) The Learned C.I.T.(A), (hereinafter called C.I.T. (A)) erred in passing the order dated 07th February, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') without appreciating the facts of the case

SUNBELL ALLOYS OF INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2009-10)

condone the delay in filing of appeal following the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC). 6. Coming to the merits of the dispute, the relevant facts can be understood as follows. The assessee before us is engaged in the business of manufacture

INFINITY RETAIL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(TDS)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of retail trading of electronic goods(CROMA). The asssessee has taken various leave and license premises from M/s R. Mall Developers Pvt.Ltd in R.N.Mall, Ghatkopar. There was survey u/sec 133A

HARILAL DESAR RANA CLOTHING COMPANY LLP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was to be deducted at the time of payment of the rent. The assessee filed Form No.26C for second quarter on 13.11.2013 which was due to file on 15.10.2013 in respect of tax deducted of Rs.7300/- thereby delay in filing he return by 29 days for which penalty of Rs.5800/- was imposed under

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

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

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