KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

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

b) erstwhile tax consultant. It was explained that the delay in filing the present appeal was primarily on the account of incorrect legal advice received from the erstwhile tax consultant. The erstwhile tax consultant has, by way of a sworn affidavit, deposed as under: “1. I say that I was appointed by my Client for representation before the learned Principal

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

b)\nerstwhile tax consultant. It was explained that the delay in filing the\npresent appeal was primarily on the account of incorrect legal advice\nreceived from the erstwhile tax consultant. The erstwhile tax\nconsultant has, by way of a sworn affidavit, deposed as under:\n\"1. I say that I was appointed by my Client for representation\nbefore the learned

ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": ["143(3)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "246A", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "249", "5", "5", "271(1)(b)", "144"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned

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

246A of the Act. ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19, 19-20 & 20-21 CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD. (iv) Considering the doctrine of merger that issues those were subject matter of prima fascia adjustment u/s 143(1) cannot be challenged by the assessee through appeal before him against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. (v) With respect

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

246A of the Act. ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19, 19-20 & 20-21 CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD. (iv) Considering the doctrine of merger that issues those were subject matter of prima fascia adjustment u/s 143(1) cannot be challenged by the assessee through appeal before him against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. (v) With respect

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

246A of the Act. ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19, 19-20 & 20-21 CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD. (iv) Considering the doctrine of merger that issues those were subject matter of prima fascia adjustment u/s 143(1) cannot be challenged by the assessee through appeal before him against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. (v) With respect

MR. NARESH TOPANDAS AIDASANI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC,DELHI/ DCIT-27(2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

B”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nSHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA NO. 105/MUM/2024 (A.Y: 2012-13)\nMr. Naresh Topandas Aidasani Vs. Dy. CIT 27(2), Mumbai\n415, Arneja Corner, Sector 17,\nVashi, Navi Mumbai – 700 705\n4th Floor, Tower No. 6, Near\nVashi Railway Station,\nPAN: ADYPA6970A\nCommercial Complex, Vashi\n(Appellant)\nNavi Mumbai

HILLWAY SADHNA CO OP OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay in filing these appeals before us and consider the issue for adjudication on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the bench queried the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A)-41, since the appeal dismissed for the reason that the same is withdrawn by the assessee

SMT. HIRABEN DHANJI VALJI VELANI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by\nthe Appellant are allowed while Ground No

delay in filing Form 10B was condoned, the exemption under Section 11 of the Act could no longer be denied.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "246A", "119(2)(b

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

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

1. Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act 55,00,000 2. Mismatch of income vis-à-vis Form 26AS. 20,28,653 3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act 48,784 10. The Assessee had originally accepted the addition of INR.55,00,000/- as deemed dividend

KONTI INFRAPOWER & MULTIVENTURES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1) (2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalkonti Infrapower & Vs. Ito – 6(1)(2), Multiventures Pvt Ltd 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, A Wing Aayakar Bhavan, Marathon Futurex, N.M M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lowerparel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc0699J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Jayesh Chobisa.Ar Respondent By : Shi.P.D. Chougule. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

b) of the Act hereby directs that: - The delay in filing of Form No10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for previous year relevant to A.Y2021-22 is condoned in cases where the following conditions are satisfied: i) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143.\nThus the grievance of the assessee on DDT liability falls under different class of liabilities\nmentioned in sec. 246A of the Act. Further, Sec. 246A provides for appellate remedy for different\ntypes of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143.\nThus the grievance of the assessee on DDT liability falls under different class of liabilities\nmentioned in sec. 246A of the Act. Further, Sec. 246A provides for appellate remedy for different\ntypes of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that

NEW BOMBAY MERCHANTS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC BANGALORE, CPC BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

B was on record and the appellant has also applied for condonation if any of delay in filling the said report. Your appellant pleads that the exemption u/s 11 be allowed and not denied for technical reasons. GROUND NO 2: UNAUTHORIZED ADJUSTMENT U/S. 143(1)-NON-ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(1)(a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in laws

NEW BOMBAY MERCHANTS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

246A before him which ground were duly raised, contested and the fact relating to which were recorded in the statement of facts. Your appellant prays that the said ground of appeal 1 to 4 be adjudicated and allowed after hearing your appellant. 1(a) Denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation (b) Unauthorised adjustments

SANGEETA MOTILAL SHAHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(3)(1), VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

condone\nthe delay of 185 days in the present case.\n3.\nBrief facts of the case are that the return was filed by the assessee on\n30.03.2013, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, thereafter\nselected for scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act. After the deliberations the\nassessment was completed with an addition on account

U S ROOFS LTD.,,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Appeals are ordered to be registered and being heard on merits by today itself. 2. The appellant, M/s.U.S.Roofs Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing aforesaid appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated

U S ROOFS LTD.,,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Appeals are ordered to be registered and being heard on merits by today itself. 2. The appellant, M/s.U.S.Roofs Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing aforesaid appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated

U S ROOFS LTD.,,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Appeals are ordered to be registered and being heard on merits by today itself. 2. The appellant, M/s.U.S.Roofs Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing aforesaid appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated