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)

E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The aforementioned appeals are cross-appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A)-I, Mumbai, for the A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. At the outset, we find that the appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 are delayed

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)

E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The aforementioned appeals are cross-appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A)-I, Mumbai, for the A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. At the outset, we find that the appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 are delayed

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

22 Getinge Medical India Private Limited conditions contained in sub- clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (a), or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of said section, such person may exercise option under this section: Provided further that once the option has been exercised for any previous year, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn for the same

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act by the Ld. AO. The appellant prays to delete the said addition as the loan was received in Amar Vithaldas Gandhi company. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred, both in fact and in law, by The Ld. CIT (A) has erred, both in fact

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

22 Rule 9 (2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

22 Rule 9 (2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw

SHA HURGOWAN ANANDJI DESAI CHARITIES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC , BENGULURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

delay may kindly be condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the condoned and the benefits of Section 11 be granted to the Appellant. Appellant. 4. 4. Without prejudice to the above, 4. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that on the facts

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

condoning the delay and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby authorizes the Commissioners of Income-tax, to admit belated applications in Form No. 9A and Form No.10 in respect of AY 2016-17 where such Form No. 9A and Form No.10 are filed after

MUKESH SHIVDAS SONAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-3, THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

condoning the delay of 50 days as per the request of the Ld. AR. 7. The pre-dominant issue that has to be decided in the present appeal is whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence produced u/s 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, to substantiate the fact that Section 2(22)(e

MUKESH SHIVDAS SONAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-3, THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

condoning the delay of 50 days as per the request of the Ld. AR. 7. The pre-dominant issue that has to be decided in the present appeal is whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence produced u/s 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, to substantiate the fact that Section 2(22)(e

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR, IT PARK, THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

22 - Due to oversight, petitioner/assessee could not file Form 10 IC electronically under section 115BBA(5) on or before due date for furnishing return of income as per Rule 21AE of Rules due to which its return was processed without giving benefit of lower rate of tax - Assessee relying upon CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 filed application under section 119(2

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, ASHAR IT PARK THANE vs. MAGIC KRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, VASAI EAST

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

22 - Due to oversight, petitioner/assessee could not file Form 10 IC electronically under section 115BBA(5) on or before due date for furnishing return of income as per Rule 21AE of Rules due to which its return was processed without giving benefit of lower rate of tax - Assessee relying upon CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 filed application under section 119(2

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

22(1)(1), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400013, Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Vidyadhar Khandekar For the Respondent/Department : Shri Asif Karmal Date Conclusion of hearing : 23.06.2025 Pronouncement of order : 25.06.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 27/11/2024, passed

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

e- Appeals scheme. The Assessee submitted that the reason for delay was due to operational difficulties faced by the management due to them being involved in executing rural projects. The Addl. /JCIT (A)-2 vide his order dtd. 21.03.2024 confirmed the decision of the AO and did not condone the delay in filing Form 10B. The Ld. CIT (A) referred

ITO 30 (1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BLOSSOM DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the both appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito 30(1)(1) Vs. M/S Blossom Room No. 436, 4Th Floor Developers Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Survey No. 273, Village G Block, Bandra(East) Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Mumbai – 400051. Malad (E), Mumbai – 400097. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Blossom Vs. Ito 30(1)(1) Developers Room No. 436, 4Th Survey No. 273, Village Floor Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Malad (E), G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400097. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, unless the Respondent-Assessee is the shareholder of the company lending him money, no occasion to apply it can arise. 12. In the present facts, it is an admitted position that Respondent-Assessee is not a shareholder of M/s. NS FinconPvt. Ltd. from whom he has received loan. Therefore, no fault

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

22-10-2024 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60,980, after 2024 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60,980, after 2024 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60,980, after claiming set-off of brought forward loss of Rs.1,10,2,515. The off of brought forward loss of Rs.1,10,2

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/12/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, directing the Assessing Officer to grant interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) from 1st April itself, whereas, the amount of refund became due for the first time because

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

delay is hereby condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: “On facts and circumstances of the case