M/S. P.A.ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BEGALURU

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

ODEX INDIA SOLUTIONS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

ARUN WAMAN KOLI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

The appeals are dismissed

condone the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), and proceed to examine/adjudicate the same on merits. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal

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)

delay of 101 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. In the present case it is not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee is a co-operative society and it has received interest income from co-operative banks

MEENA ARJUN NARANG,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

condoned. 3. The sole issue in the present matter pertains to the date of stamp duty valuation of the property which the assessee had purchased in the year 2010 for a consideration of Rs. 44,00,000/-, which was further added with certain development charges, society advance maintenance and other taxes. The property was allotted to the assessee vide allotment

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal.” B. The Ld.AR submitted that the above grounds are related to the main grounds raised in form 36 and that no new records needs to be looked into for disposing off the issue raised herein. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional

ASST CIT RG 10(3)(2), THANE vs. PANTALOON INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

24)(x) of the Act. The AO thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has partly allowed the same by restricting the disallowance to the tune of Rs64857678/- and Rs.58636230/- for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. Feeling aggrieved

PIL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

24)(x) of the Act. The AO thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has partly allowed the same by restricting the disallowance to the tune of Rs64857678/- and Rs.58636230/- for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. Feeling aggrieved

ASST CIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PANTALOON INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

24)(x) of the Act. The AO thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has partly allowed the same by restricting the disallowance to the tune of Rs64857678/- and Rs.58636230/- for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. Feeling aggrieved

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

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

24)(x) of the Act before pronouncement of the checkmate Judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall amount to misreporting of the income by the assessee/appellant with a consequence of imposing of 200% penalty u/s 270A of the Act? 4. We have heard Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld.DR on behalf of the revenue.With respect

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

24)(x) of the Act before pronouncement of the checkmate Judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall amount to misreporting of the income by the assessee/appellant with a consequence of imposing of 200% penalty u/s 270A of the Act? 4. We have heard Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld.DR on behalf of the revenue.With respect

DHANVARSHA NAGRI SAHAKARI PATASANTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was not justified both in facts and in law in: 1. Denying the deduction for Rs.36

BUSHRA SUHAIL SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -22(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blebushra Suhail Shaikh Ito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai Flat No. 301, Cadel Queen, A- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Wing, S.V.S. Marg, Cadel Road, Vs Mumbai – 400012. Mahim West, Mumbai-400016. [Pan: Dsjps1674C] (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Institution : 13.05.2025 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 18.08.2025

24,44,390/- under section 56(2)(x), ignoring the exemption available for transactions under Third Proviso to Section 50C(1) inserted by Finance Act, 2018 allows a 10% safe harbor for variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration, and the transaction is specifically excluded under the proviso to section 56(2)(x). 2. That the learned

DHANVARSHA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal on account of\nmedical issues faced by the chairman of the Appellant/Co-\noperative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record\nalong with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of\ndelay. We are satisfied that the Appellant had sufficient cause for\nnot fling the appeal in time before the Tribunal. Therefore

AMSAL CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaramsal Chem Pvt. Limited V/S. Principal Commissioner Of 4G, Kakkad House, 4Th Floor, बनाम Income Tax(Pcit),Mumbai-4, Barrack Road, Marine Lines, Room # 629,Ayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca3281G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

24)(x) of the Act. The same is allowable as deduction u/s. Sr. Sum received Due date for Actual date No. from employees payment of payment Provident Fund 1. 2,76,481 15.05.2019 16.05.2019 2. 1,76,508 15.09.2019 16.09.2019 3. 5,01,080 15.03.2020 16.03.2020 Total 9,54,069 ESIC

GEMMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP) - 1(3), MUMBAI

delay in filing the\nappeal is condoned. The request made by the appellant in that regard is\nallowed. The appeal is admitted for hearing on merit.\n8. We have also heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR with respect to the\ngrounds of appeal. It is argued on behalf of the appellant by the Ld. AR\nthat

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

delay is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee had declared her income at Rs.7,39,507/- by filing return of income on dated 22.10.2020 for the AY under consideration and during the assessment year under consideration, the Assessee had purchased a property on a consideration of Rs.72

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue