DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 reads as under; "that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(l)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense 0- whether the expenditure was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on the capital borrowed by the assessee was an item of deduction. That

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 reads as under; "that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(l)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense 0- whether the expenditure was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on the capital borrowed by the assessee was an item of deduction. That

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

condone the delay and hence the appeals are\nadmitted for hearing on merits.\n4\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 4940/Mum/2024\nI.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 4944/Mum/2024\n4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter-\nrelated and inter-connected and relates to challenging the\norder of the 1d. CIT(A) in allowing

MR. VAIDYANATHAN VEMBU,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we quash the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 21. In the net result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1577 To 1579/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 To 2016-17)

condone the delay for filing the appeal belatedly. 3 I.T.A. No 1577 to 1579/Mum/2020 Mr. Vaidyanathan Vembu 5. Ld. AR brought to our notice that assessee has filed the present appeals i.e. ITA No. 1577 to 1579/Mum/2020 and assessee has remitted the appeal fees of Rs. 30,000/-. The issue involved in the present appeals are relating to section

MR VAIDYANATHAN VEMBU,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we quash the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 21. In the net result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1577 To 1579/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 To 2016-17)

condone the delay for filing the appeal belatedly. 3 I.T.A. No 1577 to 1579/Mum/2020 Mr. Vaidyanathan Vembu 5. Ld. AR brought to our notice that assessee has filed the present appeals i.e. ITA No. 1577 to 1579/Mum/2020 and assessee has remitted the appeal fees of Rs. 30,000/-. The issue involved in the present appeals are relating to section

MR. VAIDYANATHAN VEMBU,2015-16 vs. ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we quash the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 21. In the net result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1577 To 1579/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 To 2016-17)

condone the delay for filing the appeal belatedly. 3 I.T.A. No 1577 to 1579/Mum/2020 Mr. Vaidyanathan Vembu 5. Ld. AR brought to our notice that assessee has filed the present appeals i.e. ITA No. 1577 to 1579/Mum/2020 and assessee has remitted the appeal fees of Rs. 30,000/-. The issue involved in the present appeals are relating to section

DY CIT CENT. CIR 6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CITRA PROPERTIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle 6(4), M/S. Citra Properties Ltd. M-62, 63, 1St Floor,Connought Place, Mumbai Vs. New Delhi-111 000

245D(4) of the Act. 3. The appeal is time barred by two days for which the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) had prayed for condoning the said delay by relying on 2 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Citra Properties Ltd. the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of suo moto Writ Petition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL BHAGWATLAL DALAL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Revenue's appeals are partly allowed and\nCross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay which is stated to be\nunintentional, for bonafide reasons and due to the circumstances beyond\nits the control. Reliance is placed on Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst.\nKatiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).Considering the detailed reasons, we\ncondone the delay.\n3.2 Additional ground of appeal-The assessee has made a\nrequest as per Rule

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL BHAGWATLAL DALAL, MUMBAI

condone the delay which is stated to be\nunintentional, for bonafide reasons and due to the circumstances beyond\nits the control. Reliance is placed on Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst.\nKatiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).Considering the detailed reasons, we\ncondone the delay.\n3.2 Additional ground of appeal-The assessee has made a\nrequest as per Rule