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)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

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)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

delay in fling of appeal was condoned and it was accepted for admission, which is pending. 6.2.2. The primary contention of the assessee is that the said amount, received as waiver of loan from the holding company, was, as per the considered view of the assessee, not taxable in it's hands and that the assessee

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

221]. 2.4 The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of these provisions [Ramlal

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

ADDL CIT RG 15(1), MUMBAI vs. BHUMIRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit(Osd), M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Circle-15(1), D/5-6, Big Splash, बनाम/ Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Sector-17, Vs. 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai-400007 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Jcit(Osd), D/5-6, Big Splash, Circle-15(1), बनाम/ Sector-17, Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H

1) of the Act for outstanding tax to the tune of Rs.4,32,50,133/- and accordingly levied the penalty at the rate of 10% which comes to Rs.43,25,013/-. It is noted that the major dispute was on account of allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10). As mentioned earlier, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well

KISHORE DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2011-12 Kishore Desai, Acit 17(1) 273/15 Khosla Bunder, Mumbai Vs. Darukhana, Mumbai 400 010

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. In this background, both the parties were heard on merits of the issue. In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee filed return of income on 09.08.2011 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12, which was not accompanied by self-assessment tax payable at ` 5,06,837/-. In the penalty order

M/S. G M FABRICS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -9(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S G.M. Fabrics P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Ground Floor, -9(3)(2) Dhana Singh Compound, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jb Nagar, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach 2821 F

condone the delay and treat the return is a valid return. In case of the assessee, assessee did not rectify that defect of incorrect claim or filing of proper schedules, therefore, the original return filed by the assessee on 17/10/2016 is deemed never to have been filed. The fact also shows that assessee subsequently filed the return of income

A.C.I.T.-20(2), MUMBAI vs. NIRMAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Dcit-20(2), Vs M/S Nirman Constructions, 612, Piramal Chambers, 14, Nyay Sagar, Old Nagardas Lalbaug, Road, Near Chinoy College, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacfn8428K

221 on 9th February 2010 after the completion of the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30th December 2009. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted and stated as under:– “Please refer to your above referred show cause notice dated 9th February 2010 which was received on 11th February 2010. Firstly, we would

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

1) of the Act The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of carbon black, having its presence at various locations in India. The company has customers located across India. The company had obtained corporate membership of clubs having affiliations across India for its Directors and senior employees to interact with customers and other stakeholders Such clubs provide