SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(1) of the Act, without appreciating that the disallowance is a debatable issue and hence the adjustment is bad in law. 5) The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

section 249(3) of the Act which envisages that there should have been a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period as prescribed, where the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected" Similar observation were made by Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

245 of the Act dated 26.12.2024 read with computation sheet/demand dated 23.03.2014. Even otherwise, if any delay is attributable then the same deserves to be condoned in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances and the judgments and the provisions of section

THEIS PRECISION STEEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider the reasons advanced by the appellant for the delay, in its affidavit, in their right perspective. 3. The appellant submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to consider that professional

THEIS PRECISION STEEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider the reasons advanced by the appellant for the delay, in its affidavit, in their right perspective. 3. The appellant submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to consider that professional

TULU KOOTA AIROLI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-EXMP WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

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

condoning delay in filing appeals should be interpreted liberally with a justice-oriented approach. The assessee's reasons for the delay, including medical difficulties of a trustee and a notice for refund adjustment triggering awareness of the demand, were considered sufficient.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "11", "12", "249(2)", "245

SHRI GANDHIRAJ CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 245 was served on assessee in July 2023 and that after obtaining copy of the order/ intimation of CPC, the assessee filed appeal. It is also the contention of ld AR of the assessee that there was only 75 days of delay in filing such appeal before ld CIT(A), which ought to have been condoned

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 245 was served on assessee in July 2023 and that after obtaining copy of the order/ intimation of CPC, the assessee filed appeal. It is also the contention of ld AR of the assessee that there was only 75 days of delay in filing such appeal before ld CIT(A), which ought to have been condoned

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 245 was served on assessee in July 2023 and that after obtaining copy of the order/ intimation of CPC, the assessee filed appeal. It is also the contention of ld AR of the assessee that there was only 75 days of delay in filing such appeal before ld CIT(A), which ought to have been condoned

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

DCIAT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNDARAM MULTIPAP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection. 13. The Learned AR submitted that the plea of the assessee in cross objection is that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is required to be made, since the assessee has not received any exempt dividend income. He submitted that the prayer of the assessee is supported by the decisions rendered

LINTAS EMPLOYEES HOBBIES AND CRAFT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's appeal ITA no

delay is condoned.\n7. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessee had claimed the amounts of Rs.6,74,181/- on account of dividend from mutual funds and Rs.5,76,033/- on account of interest from tax free bonds as exempt from tax. We observe that the then Ld. Addl./JCIT-2 in the Assessee

BAJAJ PROCESSING INDUSTRIES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 21(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17

245 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Bajaj Processing Industries A.Y. 2016-17 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay as the appellant had submitted the plausible explanation for the delay. Further, the appellant neither had any malafide intention nor had gained any undue benefit or there

LONGULF TRADING (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-2009

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Longulf Trading (India) The Dcit 8 (2), Private Limited, Mumbai A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Unit 1B, Time Square, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaacl1075D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/05/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31/10/2012 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) & Further Directed The Ao To Disallow The Net Provision For Loss Of Rs. 51,515/-. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Exporter Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Agriculture Commodities Industrial Chemical & Food Additives, Textiles & Engineering Goods Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring The Total Income Of Rs. 5,34,39,100/-. Since, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143 (2) & 142 (1) Of The Act. In Response Thereof The Finance Manager Of 2 Assessment Year: 2008-09

condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the interest of justice and permitted the Ld. counsel for the assessee to argue the case of the assessee on merits. 8. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee entered into a number of forward contracts

LINTAS EMPLOYEES HOBBIES AND CRAFT TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's appeal ITA no

delay is condoned.\n7. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the\nAssessee had claimed the amounts of Rs.6,74,181/- on account of\ndividend from mutual funds and Rs.5,76,033/- on account of\ninterest from tax free bonds as exempt from tax. We observe that\nthe then Ld. Addl./JCIT-2 in the Assessee

TATA PROJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 बिाम/ Tata Projects Limited, Dcit Circle-2(3)(1) 2Nd,3Rd & 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Transocean House, M K Road V. Lake Boulevard Road, Mumbai-400020 Hiranandani Gardens Mhada Colony Powai, Mumbai-400076 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact4119L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. R.R. Vora & Shri. Vipual Soni Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 329/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 27.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-6/It-52/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018

condone the aforesaid delay. An Affidavit dated 11.01.2018 executed by Mr. Santanu Chakrabarti Head-Taxation of the assessee is placed on record explaining reasons for filing this appeal late by 1 day beyond time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act, as under:- “3. That the due date for filing an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against

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

Section 245-1 of the Act. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the Grounds of appeal.” 2. On service of memorandum of appeal, the assessee filed its cross- objection raising following grounds of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent prays that the assessment order

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

Section 245-1 of the Act. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the Grounds of appeal.” 2. On service of memorandum of appeal, the assessee filed its cross- objection raising following grounds of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent prays that the assessment order