NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the returned income. 2.4 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee created a assessee created a provision

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the returned income. 2.4 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee created a assessee created a provision

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

256/- under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. We have heard both the sides on the issue and have perused the material on record. 5. The appeal preferred by the Assessee is delayed by 101 days. In the application seeking condonation

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

2 days from the date prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the time prescribed under the Act and hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 8. Coming back to the issue on hand. The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding

ORICON ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

section 256 of the Act. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P& H). In the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, wherein one of us (Judicial Member) is signatory to the order

DCIT 4(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

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

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

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(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

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

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

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 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

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

SNEHASADAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

256/- under section 11 read with Section 11(6) of the Act being the amount of capital expenditure incurred to be allowed as application of income. It is submitted that the disallowances referred to above are unjustified and bad in law as the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act itself is ill-founded and unwarranted

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

SIDDHIVINAYAK CO-OP. IND. PREMISES SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 4575/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2013-14) Siddhivinayak Co-Operative Industrial Premises Society Limited, Bldg. No.8, Jogani Indstrial Complex, Plot No.1, Survey No.2, Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400 022 Pan: Aaajs 2579J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

delay of nine days in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 3. Shri Priyesh S. Khirad appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee inter-alia earned interest