M/S. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF M/S. MONICA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Shree Renuka Sugars V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – (Successor In Interest Of M/S 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Monica Trading Pvt. Ltd.),2Nd& M.K. Road, Mumbai – 3Rd Floor, Kanakshree Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Jnmc Road, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi – 590 010, Karnataka स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs1728B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

17. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine as being time barred on the grounds of absence of supporting evidence without even adverting to the reasons furnished for delay in filing of appeal and without seeking for any such evidences. 3. At the outset, it was pointed out that the instant appeal is delayed

ORANATE MULTI MODAL CARRIERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional/preliminary ground of appeal raised

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhorient Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ito-2(2)(4), Ltd., Orient House, 4Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi Merzban Path, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaaco0797R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Heena Sheth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

17, Notes to the Accounts to Audit Report submitted by the assessee is reproduced below: "The amount misappropriated by Mr. Sanjeev Rishi , General Manger, amounting to Rs.77,26,977/- is included in the schedule of advances recoverable in cash or kind for value to be received. This was provided in the accounts of FY 2005-06 and is carried forward

BADA SAAB PROPERTIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501 Krystal, 206 Waterfield Road, Tax, Bandra (West) Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Maharashtra – 400 050 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb1642A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC. It is observed that as per the Taxation Law (Amendment Act, 2019) w.e.f. 01.04.2020 u/s 115BAA of the Act which was then inserted, the assessee being a domestic company for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after 01.04.2020 shall, at the option of such person, be taxed

SHRI. MAFATSINGH MANSINGH PARMAR,THANE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 (2), KALYAN

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 197 from M/s. Romex Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. authorizing to deduct tax at 0% issued by TDS Department, Kolkata non filing of the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) appears to be in good faith, thus a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 39 days. Consequently, the delay of 39 days in filing

ELITE RESIDENCY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. CPC - MUM-C-197(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

197(1) operative Housing Mumbai-. Society Limited Elite Residency CHSL, 1/1887, Dr. Anandrao Nair Rd, Mumbai Central, Agripada, Mumbai–400011. PAN/GIR No. AAAAE4374J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali a/w Ms. Sabeena Damkhanawala Revenue by Shri. Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 08/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TAJ TV LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

197. 14 As regards the argument of Ld. DR that, now in wake of newly inserted Explanation (v) and (vi) to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1st April, 1976, he submitted 22 ताज ट" वी "ल"मटेड M/s Taj TV Ltd ITA No. : 4678/Mum/2007 ITA No.: 412/Mum/2008 ITA No.: 4176/Mum/2009 ITA No.: 5537/Mum/2008

NA vs. ARI OIL PRODUCTS P. LTD,MUMBAIVS.DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 8665/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 6576/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 8553/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Navsari Oil Products Pvt.Ltd. Ito-Cc 7(1)(3) बनाम C/O Vvf Limited, Plot No.109 Aaykar Bhavan / Vs. Sion (East), Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-1387-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and is a deductible expenditure. Ground No. 3: (i) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO to treat the entire lease rentals of Rs.30,33,600/- included under the head 'Income from Business' to be 'Income from Property' of Rs. 27,00,000/- and 'Income from Other

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

condone the delay in verification of return. Since the said return was not reflecting in the e-filing portal, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not generated from the ITBA system. The Ld. AO provided the reasons for reopening again vide letter dated 26.10.2021 to the assessee and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA , BANK OF BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

condone the delay in verification of return. Since the said return was not reflecting in the e-filing portal, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not generated from the ITBA system. The Ld. AO provided the reasons for reopening again vide letter dated 26.10.2021 to the assessee and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide this appeal on merits. 4. In its appeal, assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that there was no intention of shifting profits outside India by the Appellant and has further failed in not giving any finding/ reasoning

DY.CIT-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SITEL INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide this appeal on merits. 4. In its appeal, assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that there was no intention of shifting profits outside India by the Appellant and has further failed in not giving any finding/ reasoning

JAICO PUBLISHING HOUSE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

17(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Phirozshah Mehta Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Fort, Mumbai - 400 001, (East), Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAFJ4986G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Harsh Kothari, AR Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 आदेश

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIR. OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPITION)-RG.-2, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

197], is as follows ; The objects of the university shall be to disseminate, create and preserve knowledge and , understanding *by teaching, research 'extension and service and by effective demonstration and influence of its corporate life on society in general, and in particular the objects shall be – (1) to carry out its responsibility of creation, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee