DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

206,93,75,430/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profits at ₹.290,37,59,620/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2016 declaring income at ₹.196,14,10,368/- under normal provisions of the Act for giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

206,93,75,430/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profits at ₹.290,37,59,620/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2016 declaring income at ₹.196,14,10,368/- under normal provisions of the Act for giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

section 22 of the Act by estimating deemed rent on unsold flats/ apartments of assessee's various projects. Thereafter allowing of Rs 12,70,41,780/- was added as 'Income from House Property'. Further, the AO recomputed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) allowable to the assessee after excluding the interest income of Rs 8,37,772/-. 4. Apropos

MULUND SAMATA CO-OP HSG SOC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

206 PAN : AJNPR9796E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR Date of hearing : 23/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 25/ 07/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeals of the same assessee were filed against the orders of theNational Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

206 PAN : AJNPR9796E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR Date of hearing : 23/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 25/ 07/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeals of the same assessee were filed against the orders of theNational Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay was not condoned and the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt dismissed that SLP. In view of the above facts and respectfully following the\nauthoritative precedents cited supra, we find no reason to condone the inordinate\ndelay of 583 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal in absence of any sufficient\ncause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is not liable

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 583 days. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 583 days. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 583 days. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 583 days. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

delay was to be condoned, however, upon payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- per appeal. The order, in this regard, was passed by the bench on the same day and the assessee was directed to pay the cost in the specified manner. 2.2 Accordingly, as directed in the order, the appeals were posted for final hearing today. The Ld. Authorized

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) :

206 Waterfield Road, Tax, Bandra (West) Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Maharashtra – 400 050 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai PAN: AAACB1642A (Appellant) (Respondent) : : Shri A.N. Shah, AR Assessee by Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 24.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee

PRAKASH INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH-ITO-19(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: “Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) rws. 147 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) and as confirmed

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

206 ITR 727 22/04/1993) wherein Hon’ble Court has held as under: - On a careful consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee, we find that before taking up the issue involved in the question of law referred to us in this case for consideration, it is necessary to first decide the last submission of learned counsel that

ELCO ARCADE RES AND NON RES. PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposesin above terms

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanelco Arcade Res & Non Res Ito 23(1)(3), Premisies Co-Operative Society Vs. Piramal Chamber, Ltd. Mumbai – 400 012 Elco Arcade, Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aaaae8544N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shripratik Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Pushkarajbhangepatil, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

delay in filing return of income has already been condoned by Ld CCIT. Hence, the Elco Arcade Res and Non Res Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow deduction

HASMUKH HIRALAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarhasmukh Hiralal Shah National Faceless 9/13, Nehru Nagar, Opp. Appeal Centre Bdd Chawl No. 9, Worli Vs. /Ito-22(1)(6), Mumbai-400 018 Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aavps2340A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN/GIR No. AAVPS2340A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless

DHANRAJ MILLS P.LTD,PALGHAR vs. ACIT (OSD-II) CR 7, THANE

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in all the assessment years challenging additions made by the AO towards interest receivable from CIFCO group of companies, Excel & Co, VKSA

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

condone the delay. (Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mehrotra ) Director Deponent” The reasons for delay in filing the appels are convincing. Therefore, we admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. The assessee also filed a petition for admission of additional grounds vide application dated 21-10-2015 raising more or less common grounds of appeal for all the years under appeals. Therefore