GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act The Id. AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration declaring

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

condonation of delay has to be treated as attributable to the assessee while determining the eligible interest in terms of section 244A(2)of the Act.In other words,if an assessee is responsible for the delay in the finalisation of the proceedings on the basis of which he becomes entitled to the refund, then the period of delay

GROWMORE EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee ‘s appeal for the assessment year 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi

delay of 16 and 52 days. In this view of the matter, we condone assessment years 1992-93 and 2008-09and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. ORDER 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “Grounds of appeal against the order dated 31.01.2014 u/s. 250 of the Act passed by the Ld. Commissioner

ANAND GOVIND PARAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1St Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri Cps Sector, Sanpada, Vs. Ito Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, Bkc Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051

Condon the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). Along with filing appeal and in reply to defection notice issued by CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected without taking into consideration of my application at all. As if I have not reply at all. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) issued notice of deficiency i.e. and asked for submission of application

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

KCA CO OPERATIVE CERDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. MUM-(197)(91), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "80P(2)(d)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "143(1)", "249(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

234A, if any, should be restricted only from the date of issue of notice under section 148 and not from the due the date of issue of notice under section 148 and not from the due the date of issue of notice under section 148 and not from the due Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 3 date under section

VAMA PVT LTD [FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD],MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 5 (3), MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

234A 85 234B The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the Grounds of Appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4 Vama Private Limited (formerly known as Vama Department Store Pvt. Ltd.) 5. Brief facts are that the assessee is the owner of showroom at Peddar Road, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer noted that the brand name

VAMA PVT LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD] ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

234A 85 234B The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the Grounds of Appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4 Vama Private Limited (formerly known as Vama Department Store Pvt. Ltd.) 5. Brief facts are that the assessee is the owner of showroom at Peddar Road, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer noted that the brand name

VAMA PVT LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-5 (3), MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

234A 85 234B The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the Grounds of Appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4 Vama Private Limited (formerly known as Vama Department Store Pvt. Ltd.) 5. Brief facts are that the assessee is the owner of showroom at Peddar Road, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer noted that the brand name

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

DCIT CEN CIR 4(3) , MUMBAI vs. GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

condone the delay and admit the appeal filed by the assessee. 60. Ground No. 1 relates to the claim of interest by the assessee amounting to `1,43,721/- after disallowing proportionate interest amounting to `2,12,47,194/- out of interest earned by the assessee on term deposits. Both the parties agreed that similar issue has arisen

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 4(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

condone the delay and admit the appeal filed by the assessee. 60. Ground No. 1 relates to the claim of interest by the assessee amounting to `1,43,721/- after disallowing proportionate interest amounting to `2,12,47,194/- out of interest earned by the assessee on term deposits. Both the parties agreed that similar issue has arisen

ABDUL SATTAR NAGORI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanabdul Sattar Nagori Ito 31(1)(1), Shop No. 123, Citi Centre S. V. Road, Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Kurla Goregaon West, Mumbai-400 062 Vs. Complex Bandra East, Pan: Ainpb2060N Mumbai-400 051

234A and 2348. 6. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the contention of the learned ITO that the appellant failed to file the income tax return, despite the return details, including the acknowledgment number and filing date, being submitted in the statement of facts. 7. The learned

NITCO PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

234A 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of generation and distribution of Windmill energy and investment business. The assessee filed the income

SANDHYA SITAL SANGTANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansandhya Sital Sangtani Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, Ito 28(3)(1), Vashi, Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aadpk5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar-Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 By Nfac Delhi Mumbai [In Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”], Vide This Impugned Order By Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2018- 19, Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On 2 Sandhya Sital Sangtani

condone the delay stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and dismissed the appeal without deciding the same on merit. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “1. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SHREE SPANAN FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-CPC BANGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n“the Act”] for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein the appeal of the assessee was\ndismissed as not maintainable.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is incorporated\nu/s 12 of the Companies Act which is formed for the betterment of blind\npeople

ROHAN HEMANT THAKKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(2), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay of 1106 days, acknowledging the faceless regime as a new technological phenomenon requiring a lenient approach for unintended lapses. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on its merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "54F", "234A