BUSHRA SUHAIL SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -22(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blebushra Suhail Shaikh Ito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai Flat No. 301, Cadel Queen, A- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Wing, S.V.S. Marg, Cadel Road, Vs Mumbai – 400012. Mahim West, Mumbai-400016. [Pan: Dsjps1674C] (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Institution : 13.05.2025 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 18.08.2025

236 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with her affidavit. 5. I have heard the submission of ld. authorised representative (ld. AR) and the learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. In support of condonation of delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay

BLUFAB FASHION FABRICS LLP,ANDHERI KURLA ROAD vs. DCIT CC 2(2), PRATISHTHA BHAVAN

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statisti

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

236/-. 3. 1 say that a survey action was conducted on the firm on 3. 1 say that a survey action was conducted on the firm on 3. 1 say that a survey action was conducted on the firm on 31.01.2018 31.01.2018 wherein wherein certain certain discrepancies discrepan cies were were found. found. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny

BLUFAB FASHION FABRICS LLP,ANDHERI (EAST) vs. DCIT CC 2(2), PRATISTHA BHAVAN

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statisti

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

236/-. 3. 1 say that a survey action was conducted on the firm on 3. 1 say that a survey action was conducted on the firm on 3. 1 say that a survey action was conducted on the firm on 31.01.2018 31.01.2018 wherein wherein certain certain discrepancies discrepan cies were were found. found. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIRCLE) - 6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AGARWAL TEXTILES INDUSTRIES P. LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5298/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), M/S Agarwal Textiles R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaca3872F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 176/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Agarwal Textiles Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anandi Varma, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in trading of silk yarn and fabrics and trading in securities and derivative securities. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.09 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,25, 38,35,120/-. Thereafter assessee has filed revised return of income on 30.03.11 revising the total

DAMYANTI ATUL SHAH,KING CIRCLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(1)(1) MUMBAI, LALBAUG

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

236/-,Payment to Contractor of Rs 84,99,352/-.In absence of any\ncompliance, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act\ndetermining the total income at Rs.1,12,82,588/- treating the above\namounts as undisclosed income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated\nfor concealment of income. However, the assessee did not file any reply

ACIT-6(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR POWER GUJARAT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to merits of the case. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of generation of electricity, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 27.09.2010 declaring income of Rs.1.44 Crore. Initially, the return was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently

ACIT-6(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR POWER GUJARAT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to merits of the case. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of generation of electricity, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 27.09.2010 declaring income of Rs.1.44 Crore. Initially, the return was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently

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)

236) was on record at the time of original assessment and the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was framed after considering the same. b. section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion as has been held by the Supreme

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)

236) was on record at the time of original assessment and the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was framed after considering the same. b. section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion as has been held by the Supreme

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

236] - holding that Co-operative Banks are primarily Co- operative Societies. Mavilayi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC)] - reaffirming eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, barring cases under Section 80P(4). Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-op. Ltd. v. ITO [(2015) 230 Taxman 309 (Karn)]. CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Kray Vikray Sangh

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

delay of 763 days 763 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication on merits 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

delay of 763 days 763 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication on merits 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condonation of delay and therefore this appeal cannot be decided as it is appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act where the computation made by the ld AO started from the income determined u/s 143 (1) of The Act. However, on this date of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative categorically stated that this appeal can be heard

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condonation of delay and therefore this appeal cannot be decided as it is appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act where the computation made by the ld AO started from the income determined u/s 143 (1) of The Act. However, on this date of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative categorically stated that this appeal can be heard

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condonation of delay and therefore this appeal cannot be decided as it is appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act where the computation made by the ld AO started from the income determined u/s 143 (1) of The Act. However, on this date of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative categorically stated that this appeal can be heard

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

M.P.RE-CYCLING CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in rectifying the return has been condoned. If AO has accepted the return of income and proceeded to compute the income in accordance with the return of income and has permitted the assessee to remove defect, then it has to be treated as a valid return. 13. Now the issue is, whether the date of filing of return should