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

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", "234B", "234C", "234D

FARID ABDUL REHMAN THANAWALLA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethfarid Abdul Vs Income Tax Officer, Rehmanthanawalla Ward 22(1)(1) 21/A, Queens Park, Juhu Piramal Chamber, Tara Road, Santacruz(W), Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No:Acapt3922G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B granted by the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption). 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

condone the delay and hold that the\nissues raised by the assessee require proper examination by the\nAssessing Officer. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice,\nwe set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter\nto the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in\naccordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being

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

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

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

condone of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown by the appellant as per the provisions of section 249 r.w.s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 4. The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 07.03.2024 is bad in law. Therefore, should be set aside

ICICI BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

234D is to be calculated up to the date of original assessment order. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue and same stand dismissed. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 13.Assessee’s Cross Objection ITA No. 158/Mum/2023 Ground of appeal in the cross objection of the assessee: 1. Erroneous re-opening

THE DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

234D is to be calculated up to the date of original assessment order. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue and same stand dismissed. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 13.Assessee’s Cross Objection ITA No. 158/Mum/2023 Ground of appeal in the cross objection of the assessee: 1. Erroneous re-opening

ANURAG CHANDRA,NOIDA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

condone the delay of 02 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income declaring ₹.40,78,600/- on 13.10.2016 and at the time of filing his tax return had computed business loss on sale of securities at ₹.36,06,106/-. During the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that

CHANDRASHEKHAR DINKAR CHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chandrashekhar Dinkar Chavan Ito, Ward-27(1)(1), Room No. 3667, Bldg. No. 105, Vs Vashi Rly. Station Commercial Near Hanuman Temple, Tilak Nagar, Complex, 406, Tower-5, Vashi, Chembur,Mumbai-400089. Navi Mumbai, [Pan No. Acipc1075B] Maharashtra-400703 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

sections; (Secs. 28 and Sec.69A); therefore, deemed addition u/s. 69A is not justified when the impugned transactions have already been reflected in the Books of A/c. which was accepted u/s.145 without any rejection when the books are audited and Tax Audited. 4. Levy of Penal Interests u/s. 234A 2348, 234C & 234D. On merits, the Appellant denies his liability to penal

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

CHANDRAPRABHA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(1)(6), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 198 days in filing the 3 Assessment Year 2017-2018 present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised by the Assessee which reads as under: “1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5

DINESH KUMAR RAJENDRA SINGH,MALAD EAST MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

234D as charging such interest is arbitrary, excessive and not sustainable in law. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the contention of the Ld. AO where the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty under Section 271(a)(b) as such penalty is arbitrary, excessive, and not sustainable in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the same

MANISH KANTILAL HARIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 2 (2) (1), MUMBAI

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

sections": [ "250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

SAHIFA ASIF SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

234D of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT AND MACHINES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

234D of the Act of ₹ 7,030/- is upheld. This appeal is also filed late by 7 days. vi. ITA No. 132/Mum/2022 is filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 16th November, 2021, wherein the order passed under Section 200A of the Act levying late fee under Section 234E

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT & MACHINES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

234D of the Act of ₹ 7,030/- is upheld. This appeal is also filed late by 7 days. vi. ITA No. 132/Mum/2022 is filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 16th November, 2021, wherein the order passed under Section 200A of the Act levying late fee under Section 234E

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT AND MACHINES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

234D of the Act of ₹ 7,030/- is upheld. This appeal is also filed late by 7 days. vi. ITA No. 132/Mum/2022 is filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 16th November, 2021, wherein the order passed under Section 200A of the Act levying late fee under Section 234E