NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

208-09, I have even offered to have my business income determined on any reasonable estimated basis in absence of proper records in my hand, which offer was not accepted. All these actions should also show that I am a person who is earnest in getting my tax assesii1s resolved amicably and not allowing the same to linger. I, therefore

MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

208/- towards EPF and deposit of Rs. 1,930/-towards ESIC, aggregating to Rs. 15,138/- without considering extension of due dates. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there was no violation whatsoever of the objectives behind the introduction of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2

CASCADE HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2003-2004 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Acit- Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Central Circle – 31, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacc5768N Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay of 661 days in filing the present appeal and permitted the Ld. counsel to argue the case of the assessee on merits. Vide Ground No.1, the assessee has contended that since the assets under consideration and the consequential income belong to Sh. Harshad S Mehta, the AO ought to have taxed in the hands of Harshad Mehta

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CEN.CIR.46, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

208 & 209/Mum/2013 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. Financial Technologies DCIT, Central Circle 46 (India) Ltd. Mumbai FT Tower, CTS No. 256/257 Vs. Suren Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai 400093 PAN - AAACF5737C Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Chetan Karia Respondent by: Shri G.M. Doss Date of Hearing: 17.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2016 O R D E R Per Jason

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CEN.CIR.46, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

208 & 209/Mum/2013 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. Financial Technologies DCIT, Central Circle 46 (India) Ltd. Mumbai FT Tower, CTS No. 256/257 Vs. Suren Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai 400093 PAN - AAACF5737C Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Chetan Karia Respondent by: Shri G.M. Doss Date of Hearing: 17.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2016 O R D E R Per Jason

JAYAKAR SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 41(1)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

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 Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayakar Shetty, Ito Circle 41(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, Sai Krupa Chandvarkar Kautilya Bhavan, Cross Road, Kandivali West, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aanps 8452 K Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act and certain judicial precedents relating to dismissal for non precedents relating to dismissal for non-prosecution, prosecution, and thereafter dismissed the appeal. The relevant extract of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order dismissed the appeal. The relevant extract of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order dismissed the appeal. The relevant extract

VELVET HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 31 CEN RG -7, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

delay in filing the appeal are condoned. 7. On merits, the ld. AR submits that he is not pressing Ground of appeal No.1 of the appeal. Considering the contention of the assessee Ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 8. Ground of appeal No.2 relates to disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.1,15,20,783/-. The ld. AR submits

M/S D B INFRATECH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE 32(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal Be Condoned & The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) Be Set Aside Since The Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Without Examining The Merits Granting One More Opportunity To The Appellant To Make Out His Case Before The Cit(A) On Merits. Explain The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal, The Learned Authorised Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Was Caused On Account Of Inadvertent Mistake Committed By The Employee Of The Company Who Was Tasked With The Job Of Keeping Track Of The Appellate Proceedings Before The Cit(A) & Was Asked To Arrange For Filing Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A).

208, 2nd Floor, Vs Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), …………. Mumbai – 400051. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Mahaveer Jain For the Respondent/Department : Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date Conclusion of hearing : 10.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 27.02.2025 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against

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

MUKESH S. JHANGIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-24(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

208/- and Rs.26,99,265/- for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively has been made and thereby made assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals. On failure of the assessee to appear and argue

MUKESH S. JHANGLIANI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-24(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

208/- and Rs.26,99,265/- for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively has been made and thereby made assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals. On failure of the assessee to appear and argue

MUKESH S. JHANGIANI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-24(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

208/- and Rs.26,99,265/- for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively has been made and thereby made assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals. On failure of the assessee to appear and argue

MUKESH S JHANGIANI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-24(2) (4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

208/- and Rs.26,99,265/- for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively has been made and thereby made assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals. On failure of the assessee to appear and argue

DCIT - 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MILI CONSULTANTS AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesse is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathadcit, Circle-4(3)(2) Vs. Mili Consultants & Room No.649, 6Th Floor Investments Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan 204, Shreepal Complex M.K.Road Suren Road Mumbai-400 020 Near Cine Magi Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm6095Q Appellant) .. Respondent) & Cross Objection No.206/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mili Consultants & Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(3)(2) Room No.649, 6Th Floor Investments Pvt.Ltd. 204, Shreepal Complex Aaykar Bhavan Suren Road M.K.Road Near Cine Magi Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm6095Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

delay in filing cross objection has been condoned and admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of stock broking, trading & investment in 4 Co.No.206/Mum/2019 shares, securities, commodities & currencies like arbitrage etc, filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 27/09/2011, declaring total

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 234B(1) r.w.s 208 of the Act were not applicable to this Assessment Year as the Appellant Society was not required to pay advance tax u/s 208 of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre is erred in observing

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

NAVED MOHD SAEED QAZI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(2)(4) ., MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 513/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Naved Mohd Saeed Qazi Vs. Ito, Ward 11 Bit Block No. 5 27(2)(4) I.R. Road, Near J.J. Tower No. 6 Hospital, Mumbai-400 003. Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Pan : Aacpq6265D Navi Mumbai 400 703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hasan Khan Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2017 – 18 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner (Appeals) – 1, Jaipur (The Learned Cit – A) Dated 7/12/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 22/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward 27 (2) (4), Mumbai (The Learned Ao Was Dismissed. Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 2. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3 & 42,740/– & 19/7/2017. This Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Act. Subsequently Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny To Verify The Credit Card Payments. Therefore, The Notice Under Section 143 (2) Was Issued On 16/8/2018. Further Notices Were Issued Under Section 142 (1) Of The Act However There Is No Response. The Learned Ao Noted That Assessee Has Made A Payment Of Rs. 865,441 In Cash To The Three

208,180 by the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) of the act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A noted that the order under section 143 (3) was passed on 22/12/2019, which is why the appeal was filed on 25/10/2021 which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing