SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions

ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (NOW BTG ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION),MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

207 ITD 633 (Kol) (Trib.)in support of the contention that a liberal view of the matter is required to be taken by the authorities concerned and the ld.CIT(E) may be directed to condone the delay and grant final registration or he may be directed to treat the application for registration in Form No 10A in correct section

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

R.C.CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPHS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

delay in filing Form-10B, may be condoned and assessing officer may be directed to allow benefit of section 11 to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj HC),  Social Security Scheme of GICEA

R.C SCHOOL OF ST. TERESAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

delay in filing Form-10B, may be condoned and assessing officer may be directed to allow benefit of section 11 to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj HC),  Social Security Scheme of GICEA

MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC -8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals for 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 &

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ramlal Negi

207 (Kar.)(HC) iv) Smt. Sunita Bai [2017] 78 taxmann.com 274 (Kar.)(HC) v) CIT v Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2015] 378 ITR 84 (Bom.) The Bombay High Court decision is confirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society Civil Appeal No. 11080 of 2017 dt. 29/8/2017. (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC) vi) Skylark Build

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ SMARAK SAMITI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E), CIRCLE 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 154. Your appellant reserves the right to add, to alter or amend any of the above grounds, if necessary.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that AO had completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 18/03/2015 at income of Rs.20,85,658/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued an order u/s.154. In the order u/s.154 he rejected the claim

VERTEX SPINNING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 1 and 2

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vertex Spinning Limited 1011, 10Th Floor, Embassy Centre, 207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan:Aabcv5617N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN:AABCV5617N ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Smt. Dinkle Hariya Respondent by : Vranda U Matkari,Sr. AR Date of hearing : 23/03/2023 Date of pronouncement : 15/05/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld.Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI CITY vs. HATHWAY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas the cross objections filed by the Assessee’s are allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar & Co No. 90/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2014-15} A N D & Co No. 91/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2017-18}

207/- u/s. 14A of the Act, being 1% of the average value of the current investments, which was not found proper and accurate by the Ld. AO and therefore, he accordingly, determined the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, to the tune of Rs. 3,79,87,373/- being disallowance @ 1% of the average investments

ACIT- 4 2 1, MUMBAI CITY vs. HATHWAY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas the cross objections filed by the Assessee’s are allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar & Co No. 90/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2014-15} A N D & Co No. 91/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2017-18}

207/- u/s. 14A of the Act, being 1% of the average value of the current investments, which was not found proper and accurate by the Ld. AO and therefore, he accordingly, determined the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, to the tune of Rs. 3,79,87,373/- being disallowance @ 1% of the average investments

TEHMINA K KATRAK CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

delay (if\nany) is condonable.\n5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the rectification u/s 154\ndenying the trust exemption itself was without jurisdiction, and\nnot a 'mistake apparent from record'.\n6. Your Appellant prays that the Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax, CPC, (DCIT) be directed to grant the exemption under\nSection 11 of The Income

PANDURANG HARI VAIDYA AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(2)(5) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpandurang Hari Vaidya Vs. Income Tax Officer & Company, 109, Ward 22(2)(5), Someshwar Niwas, Room No. 320, 3 Rd Floor, Shivaji Park Road No. 3 Piramal Chambers, Lal Dadar West, Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400028 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aahft7721Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mihirnaniwadekar Adv. & Rucha Vaidya Respondent By : Ujjawalchavhan Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.03.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

section 68 when the amount of Rs. 1,29,88,000/- is already included in sales figure on which GST also has been paid and consequently amounts to double addition 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal.” 2. The assessee submitted that there is delay in filing this appeal

DNYANSHWAR NIVRUTI TALPADE,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydhyaneshwar Nivrutti Vs. Principal Commissioner Talapade, Plot No. 207, Of Income Tax, 6 Th Floor, Nirmal Nagar At Post Ashar I.T. Park, Road Asangaon, Shahpur, Number 162 Nehru Nagar Shahpur Maharashtra - Wagle Ind. Estate, 421601 Thane (W) 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ackpt2532N Appellant .. Respondent

207, of Income Tax, 6 th Floor, Nirmal Nagar At Post Ashar I.T. Park, Road Asangaon, Shahpur, Number 162 Nehru Nagar Shahpur Maharashtra - Wagle Ind. Estate, 421601 Thane (W) 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: ACKPT2532N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Riddhi Mishra Date of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश

SHENDRA ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

207 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application dated 12th February 2014, accompanied with an affidavit sworn by a director of assessee company explaining the cause of delay. The reason stated in the Affidavit is, the registered office of the assessee company is at Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari – Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari

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

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MALABAR HILL CLUB LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-5(2), M/S Malabar Hill Club R. No.571, Aaykar Bhavan Limited, बनाम/ M.K. Road, Il Palazzo, B.K. Kher Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacw3868M

207, 234 and 235 of the paper book. He relied upon the cases of .The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act for the year under appeal, that he had not discussed anything