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 ()

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 total income

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

condone the belated claim under section 80AC. under section 80AC. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the subject adjustment carried

MR GANESH ANANDRAO INGULKAR ,MUMABI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleganesh Anandrao Ingulkar V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Centralized Processing Center B/502, Shivram Park Income Tax Department Opp. Ashok Kedare Chowk Bengaluru, Karnataka-560500 Tembipada Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai - 400078 Pan: Aappi6881C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, brief facts of the case are assessee filed its return of income on 05.08.2019 declaring total income of ₹.21,56,790/-. Further, assessee filed revised return of income on 16.06.2020 by declaring the same income as declared in the original return of income. However, assessee claimed relief

LIMRASS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\"] dated 30.01.2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the addition\nmade by the AO at Rs.6,58,24,976/- u/s 41(1) of the Act, was confirmed.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in\nthe business

KUMARI KUMAR ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (CPC) BANGALORE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi.

delay and justification for deferment of advance tax loses significance for the purposes of levy of interest under section 234C of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court noted that the proviso to section 234C(1) of the Act prescribes cases for condoning

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

YOJANA SURESH BHOIR,THANE vs. CPC, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), THANE, THANE

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

condoning delays to ensure substantial justice. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "139(1)", "143(1)", "32", "234B", "234C

ANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

234C of the Act. 6. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and / or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return under section 139(4A) beyond the due date of filing the return as per Proviso

MARLOW CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Marlow Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Ito, Ward-20(2)(1), Mumbai Plot No. 62B, Marlow Chs Ltd. Vs Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, Sir Pochkhanawala Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400030. Lalbaug, Parel, [Pan No. Aaaam5247J] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

condonation of delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal of the Appellant on merely technical ground of limitation without appreciating that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause Marlow Co-op Housing Society Ltd. in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period provided under the Act. Hence, impugned order passed

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)

234C of the Act.” 4. Since, there is a delay of 661 days in filing the present appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. In the light of the application, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee applicant is a notified entity under the provisions of Special Court (trial of offence relating

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

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

234C of the Act.” 57. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 391 days. We heard both the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. The assessee has submitted the application under Section

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

234C of the Act.” 57. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 391 days. We heard both the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. The assessee has submitted the application under Section

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

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 tax return

HARSH ESTATE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1222/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1992-93) बनधम/ Harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Central Circle-31 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, (Now Dy Cit (Cc-4(3) R. Vs. No.1921, 19Th Floor, Air A.B. Road, Worli, India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400018. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach3480L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/06/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992- 93. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Ld. C Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Upholding Order Passed By Ao U/S 144 Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Disallowance Of Various Expenses Amounting To Rs.1,32,476/- Claimed By The Appellant As Under.:- S. Particulars Amount No. 1. Audit Fees 64,000/- 2. Repairs & Maintenance 71,476 Rs.1,00,000(-) (7,1324)

condoned the delay. ISSUE NO. 1 5. This issue has not been pressed by the Ld. Representative of the assessee, therefore, in the said circumstances; this issue is being decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee being not pressed. ISSUE NO. 2 6. Issue no. 2 is in connection with the disallowance Audit Fees expenses

DEEPAK CLIFFORD MENEZES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. Pawan Singh

234C of the act. (vi) The ld CIT(A) erred in confirming interest of Rs 2,242/-charge under section 234D of the act. 3. We have noticed that in all the appeals there are delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. The appeal(s) are accompanied with the application for condonation

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