GHUMLI SHIPPING AGENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainghumli Shipping Agents Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1)(3) Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No. 32, 7Th Floor, Bldg Mumbai. No. 3, Tata Mills Hsg, Society, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Pan/Gir No. Aahcg4357J (Applicant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay. 9. The appellant objects to the granting of short credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by Rs. 30,41,631/- by relying on Rule 37 BA and also by not considering appellant's reply dated 07.12.2023 filed in response to the notice issued under section 139 (9) of the Act. The appellant opposes the action

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

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

condone the said delay and admit the CO for hearing and adjudication. 3.1 At the outset, the learned D.R. for Revenue raised the objection that since Revenue‟s appeal in ITA No. 434/Mum/2011 had been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 15.02.2016 the assessee‟s CO is not maintainable as it did not survive and should be dismissed

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

SHELTER CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

condone the delay of 194 days in the furnishing of the Audit Report in the prescribed Form 108. (8) The Assessing officer has erred in Law Initiating Penalty Proceeding Under Section of The 2710) C) of The Income Tax Act 1961 (9) The Assessing officer has erred in Law in charging the Interest under Section 234

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

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting the merits of the case. 9. We find that case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information with the Assessing Officer that there were cash deposits of Rs.5,87,678/- with Himachal Mitra Mandal Co-op Credit Society. The assessing officer after recording reasons of reopening and serving notice under

LAKSHMI RAO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Lakshmi Rao Ito – Ward – 22(1)(4) (Now Ito-Ward-22(1)(1) A3102 Lodhabellissimo Piramal Chambers Off: N.M. Joshi Marg Vs Mumbai – 400012 Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400013 Maharashtra Maharashtra

condoning delay 4. To delete interest charged u/s 234 A, B & C and penalty initiated u/s 271[4][c] [C] General: • The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full. • A Detailed paper book along with case laws will

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BORIVALI(WEST) vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenew Infrastructure Private Limited V. Acit- 13(1)(1) 23, B, Ganjawala Apartment 218, 2Nd Floor Svp Road, Borivali (W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- 400092 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaccn1678G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Department Represented By :

234 & initiation of penalty u/s 271[1][c]. [D] General: The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full. A detailed paper book will be filed at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

APURVA MUKESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(1) MUMBAI, KAUTILIYA BHAVAN

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarapurva Mukesh Ito Ward 41 Thakkar (2)(1) Mumbai 11 Dr Rp Road & Ns Vs. Room No. 234 Mataji Bungalow Bldg Kautilya Bhavan Cross Road Near City C41 To C43 Block Bank Atm Mumbai Bkc Bandra East 400080 - Mumbai Mumbai 400051, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Adspt8293K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shriparth J. Bhatt Revenue By Shrisurendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

234 Mataji Bungalow Bldg Kautilya Bhavan Cross Road Near City C41 to C43 Block Bank ATM Mumbai BKC Bandra East 400080 - Mumbai Mumbai 400051, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. ADSPT8293K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by ShriParth J. Bhatt Revenue by ShriSurendra Mohan (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed

M/S GROWMORE EXPORTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-31, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4358/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Growmore Exports बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner Limited, 32, Madhuli,3 Rd Of Income Tax,Cc-31 V. Floor, Dr.Annie Besant R.No.409,Aaykar Road, Worli, Mumbai- Bhawan, M .K .Road, 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacg4939P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

condone the delay under consideration and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. At the outset, ld Counsel for the assessee company mentioned that ground nos. 1,2 and 3 are not pressed . After hearing the ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue, the said grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 6. Ground No. 4 relates to the disallowance

VIDYA BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8 (3) (3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

condone the small delay in present matters. Vidya Buildcon Private Ltd. ITA No. 4654/Mum/2024 AY 2010-11 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee (AR) submitted that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of trading and investment. That during the year under consideration an addition of Rs. 3,44,47,000/- under section

VIDYA BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

condone the small delay in present matters. Vidya Buildcon Private Ltd. ITA No. 4654/Mum/2024 AY 2010-11 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee (AR) submitted that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of trading and investment. That during the year under consideration an addition of Rs. 3,44,47,000/- under section

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A),NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234 amounting to Rs. 75,151/- may please be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter or delete or amend any grounds of appeal.” 4. In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, we proceed to dispose off these appeals on merits on hearing the Ld.DR

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234 amounting to Rs. 75,151/- may please be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter or delete or amend any grounds of appeal.” 4. In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, we proceed to dispose off these appeals on merits on hearing the Ld.DR

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234 amounting to Rs. 75,151/- may please be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter or delete or amend any grounds of appeal.” 4. In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, we proceed to dispose off these appeals on merits on hearing the Ld.DR

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A),NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234 amounting to Rs. 75,151/- may please be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter or delete or amend any grounds of appeal.” 4. In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, we proceed to dispose off these appeals on merits on hearing the Ld.DR

SHAILESH HATMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. At the outset, I noticed that present appeal is time barred and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, the same is reproduced herein below

GROWMORE EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 31 CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose it off on merits. 5. The assessee has moved an additional ground, wherein the assessee has requested for capitalization of interest expenses attributable to shares and securities, which was not allowed as deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. The assessee has moved an application, wherein