SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

244 days in filing the present appeal. He referred to the application of the assessee for present appeal. He referred to the application of the assessee for present appeal. He referred to the application of the assessee for SaphaleParisarBigarshetiSahkari 4 seeking condonation of the delay filed by the assessee along with seeking condonation of the delay filed by the assessee

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

NANDKISHORE STEEL INDUSTRIES P.LTD,NAGPUR vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 Nandkishore Steel Dcit-7(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ Gupta House, 6Th Floor, Plot Vs. No.1, Rabindranath Tagore Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcn8901D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Komal Keswani Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 21/05/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

244/- (which is as per the return of Rs. 4,99,90,320/- ignoring the fact that the assessment order was framed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee Sh. R.V. Loya, invited our attention for condonation of delay

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LATE MR. E.F DINSHAW,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Administrator Of The Estate Ito(International Of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw, Taxation)-1(1), बनाम/ 412, Churchgate Chambers, Scindia House, Vs. Sir V.T. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No.Aaepd8394A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

POMEGRANATE MEDIA (PTY) LTD,SOUTH AFRICA vs. DCIT(IT)-3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

condoning the delay in filing the appeals, we admit them for hearing and adjudication on merits. 5. The solitary common issue in dispute arising in these appeals relate to the nature of income received by the assessee from Endemol India Pvt. Ltd., towards line production services, whether is in the nature of fee for technical service, hence, exhigible

SHRI PARESH HARJI RAMANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -29(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, making an addition in respect of purchase of shares from the stock exchange. The said re-assessment was attended te by Mr. Navin Rathod and his associates, keeping the assessee in the dark. In the said re-assessment proceeding, it has even been wrongly stated that the Appellant is an exit provider

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI vs. UPL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company engaged in trading of fertilizers, chemicals, agro based products. A search action was carried out on assessee group on 22.01.2020. Consequent upon search action, the assessee approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The assessee filed application

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI vs. UPL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company engaged in trading of fertilizers, chemicals, agro based products. A search action was carried out on assessee group on 22.01.2020. Consequent upon search action, the assessee approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The assessee filed application

HI-ROCK CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 32 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the case was heard on merit. 10. On merit the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil contractor. The main business activities of the assessee involves taking up contract/sub- 6 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction

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

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

Delay condoned. 2 Ramesh Dungarshi Shah 3. The solitary ground of appeal is on the addition of Rs. 3,82,200/- made under the head ‘Income from house property’, where the ld. AO has taken the notional rent of unsold shops/flats at Rs. 5,46,000/- as per the provision of Section 23(1)(a) r.w.s

HYBRID FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

delay is condoned and the matter is taken up for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2014, reporting a loss of Rs. 1,16,70,751/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2014 declaring Nil income and claiming the same loss as per the original return. During

TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year: 2017-18 Tata Chemicals Limited Pcit-2, Mumbai

Section 263 and setting aside the assessment for A.Y. 2017-18, without appreciating the fact and that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2 Tata Chemicals Limited A.Y. 2017-18 3. The learned PCIT erred in referring to and relying on facts and giving findings thereon without appreciating the relevant

M/S. THAKUR INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 6. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No.742 & 743/M/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 order dated 18.01.2021 wherein the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.MAYURESH LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6691/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) In The Matter Of:

244 to 268 of the Paper Book. 29/08/2016 Summons to the Assessee u/s 131 of the Act. received by the Appellant on 01/09/16 02/09/2016 The Appellants requested for adjournment 16/09/2016 Show Cause Notice for non compliance of summons. 10/10/2016 Summarizing all the details submitted during the course of hearing. Please refer Page 271 of the Paper Book. 8.2) The Assessing

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee