SHRI SAMBHAVNATH SWETAMBER JAIN DERASAR TRUST,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), THANE

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

section 143(1) of the Act. 4 M/s. Shri Sambhavnath Swetamber Jain Derasar Trust 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) reached the conclusion that when the assessee trust has failed to furnish the audit report in form No.10B nor he has moved an application for condonation of delay before

LINTAS EMPLOYEES RECREATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law: “Ground No.1 ERRED IN NOT CONDOING DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL Assessment Year 2021-2022 The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits

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

JAY MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(5), MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jay Maharashtra Co-Op. Credit Ito 19(1)(5), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Vs. Room No. 1, Ground Floor, Shiv Parel, Bhavan, Bldg. No. 25, 4Th Mumbai-400012. Kamathipura, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008. Pan No. Aafaj 3385 B Appellant Respondent

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, i the Act. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay n the interest of substantial justice, the delay is condoned, and the appeal

HATHWAY C NET P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hathway C-Net Private The Tax Recovery Officer Limited, Rahejas, 4Th Floor, (Tds)-1 Smt. K.G. Mittal बिधम/ Corners Of Main Avenue & Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. V.P. Road, Santa Cruz (West) Charni Road-(West), Mumbai- 400054 Mumbai-400 002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaach8338K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

condone the delay of 658 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 9. We shall now advert to the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short P a g e | 11 ITA No. 4112/Mum/2016 AY: 2003-04 Hathway C-Net Private Ltd. Vs. TRO (TDS) „A.R‟) for the assessee

RAMEL AJIT SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blems. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Ramel Ajit Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward No.28(2)(1), Building No. A6, 3Rd Floor Vashi, Mumbai. Swagat Chs,Plot No. 14 Vs Nerul (W),Navi Mumbai-400706 Maharashtra

230/-. The Assessing Officer after reducing the taxable income declared by the assessee from the total receipt of Rs.5,45,234/-, workout a figure of Rs.3,53,884/- (545234 - 191350) and made addition thereof in the assessment order dated 24.02.2022, passed under section 144B rws 147. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

M/S. BRANDMARK SOLUTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC/AO NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

230/- for A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 and particularly when the matter is sub-judice which is wholly wrong and against the provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made thereunder. 2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and delete all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeals on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Briefly

M/S. BRANDMARK SOLUTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS, CPC/AO NAFC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

230/- for A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 and particularly when the matter is sub-judice which is wholly wrong and against the provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made thereunder. 2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and delete all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeals on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Briefly

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

230 Taxman 309 (Karn)]. CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Kray Vikray Sangh Ltd. [(2017) 395 ITR 185 (Raj)]. CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. ((2004) 267 ITR 34 (SC)] -stating that interest from other co-operative societies is deductible. Elco Arcade Res and Non Res Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. 3. The reliance on Totgars

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 ()

230/- 4. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming Rs 7,11,531/- as a dividend income. 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not reducing the interest income already shown in Profit and Loss account. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the "-" contentions of the appellant company that no real

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

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 ()

230/- 4. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming Rs 7,11,531/- as a dividend income. 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not reducing the interest income already shown in Profit and Loss account. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the "-" contentions of the appellant company that no real

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the AO on receiving the information from the Exemption Wing, of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai, to the effect that no TDS was deducted by the banks on the interest payments made on fixed deposits to Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), verified the traces system and other departmental sources

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the AO on receiving the information from the Exemption Wing, of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai, to the effect that no TDS was deducted by the banks on the interest payments made on fixed deposits to Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), verified the traces system and other departmental sources

HARESH A. MODY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

230 days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay and seeking condonation for the same. It is submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that as the assessee was not 2 Shri Haresh A. Mody carrying on his day–to–day activities in the given address the notices and orders issued by the Department

M/S M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

delay of 19 days is condoned. 4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- “1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in rejecting the books of accounts and making an addition of Rs. 13,88,21,090/- to the total

ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M B PATIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , MUMBAI

delay of 19 days is condoned. 4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- “1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in rejecting the books of accounts and making an addition of Rs. 13,88,21,090/- to the total

SHRI. VINOD NEVATIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2013–14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. ITA no.1391/Mum./2020 Assessment Year – 2011–12 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming

SHRI. VINOD NEVATIA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2013–14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. ITA no.1391/Mum./2020 Assessment Year – 2011–12 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main