BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

163 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka170Mumbai163Chennai104Delhi75Kolkata74Bangalore57Calcutta38Jaipur30Cuttack29Pune28Raipur27Hyderabad21Chandigarh20Ahmedabad16Visakhapatnam14Varanasi13Cochin13Panaji11SC10Telangana9Surat9Lucknow6Indore6Andhra Pradesh6Rajkot5Allahabad5Kerala4Amritsar4Patna3Nagpur3Agra2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Guwahati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 366Section 453Disallowance44Deduction37Section 143(3)35TDS29Exemption29Section 260A28Section 26028Section 54F

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

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

ITA 955/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/s. Jitendra Jain, Gopal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section, the first Appellate Authority may on good and sufficient reason for the delay shown by the appellant, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the cause for delayed appeal should be "sufficient", "correct", "genuine" and "convincing one". Here is the case where there is no sufficient and genuine reason for filing appeal after

Showing 1–20 of 163 · Page 1 of 9

...
28
Section 227
Addition to Income27

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

ITA 2348/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 139(1) of the Act. The submission of the assessee that due to technical error in uploading the return on the last date because of which the return got uploaded just after midnight with a delay of two minutes but for that the delay of filing is not intentional, has been rejected by the Assessing Officer observing that

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

ITA 2147/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 139(1) of the Act. The submission of the assessee that due to technical error in uploading the return on the last date because of which the return got uploaded just after midnight with a delay of two minutes but for that the delay of filing is not intentional, has been rejected by the Assessing Officer observing that

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

ITA 3715/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

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

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

ITA 3844/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

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

KESARAM CHATARARAMJI CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(21)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6556/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: 10/12/2025
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

section 131 of the Act and recorded the statement of the assessee. ecorded the statement of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has noted in impugned assessment order that The Assessing Officer has noted in impugned assessment order that The Assessing Officer has noted in impugned assessment order that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to the assessee failed

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

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

ITA 6320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

260, 265- 66; J.B. Advani& Co., Pr. Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; Saoorajmall Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre& Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi vs. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal 204]. 2.6 However, while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prove

MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

ITA 419/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

260/- Madhuri Sunil Zode 4 2. That my return of income was processed 29.11.2021 by Centralized Processing Center (CPC), wherein a sum of Rs.17,14,276/- was disallowed due to delayed deposit of PF/ESIC. 3. That appeal filed by me against the Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 29.11.2021 issued by the CPC, Bengaluru for Assessment Year 2020-21 dismissed

DHANESH JYOTINDRA KOTHARI,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE(IT)-3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

260/- and passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act dated 28.04.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has issued notice and there was compliance by the assessee and there was ITA No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari., Mumbai. delay of 21 days

LINTAS EMPLOYEES RECREATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3747/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Section 143(1) of the Act. 8. We note that before the CIT(A) the Assessee had cited ill health of administrator, who was about 74 years of age and was facing health issue on account of covid and pneumonia, as the reason for delay in filing the appeal. We find that in the case of M/s. Lintas Employees Hobbies

SHRI. NARESH C MISTRY,THANE vs. ITO-3(1), THANE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid

ITA 98/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanshri Naresh C. Mistry, M/S. Neo Mech Engineers, Plot No.C-30, Road No.16, Wagle Indusrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 Pan: Aawpm 0822A ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi

260 days in filing of the appeal. The delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed on merits. 5. Shri Nishit Gandhi, ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee explaining the facts of the case submitted that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of information

ESTATE OF LATE SUNDERLAL C. PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CPC BANGALORE, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3706/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Acit-Cpc-Bangalore, Parikh, Income Tax Officer-26(1)(4), बनाम/ Vrindavan, 33, Hatkesh Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Society, C-10, Bkc, Bandra, 5Th N.S. Road, Jvpd, Mumbai-400050 Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400056 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaae1766G "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Ms Neha Paranjape-Ar Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Estate Of Late Sunderlal C. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2018

Section 143(1)Section 159Section 168(1)(a)Section 246(1)(a)

condoning the delay, resulting into confirmation of the order of the AC-CPC, ignoring the factual matrix and not applying correct charge of tax applicable u/s 159 r.w.s 168 and further in not computing the tax in terms of section 168(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Sant, Ld. DR
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 3

260 (Bom), Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) and Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOP (2016) 73 taxmann.com 252 ultimately affirmed the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, by holding as under:- 5.14 In view of the above clear position of law and respectfully relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 362/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Sant, Ld. DR
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 3

260 (Bom), Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) and Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOP (2016) 73 taxmann.com 252 ultimately affirmed the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, by holding as under:- 5.14 In view of the above clear position of law and respectfully relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 363/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Sant, Ld. DR
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 3

260 (Bom), Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) and Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOP (2016) 73 taxmann.com 252 ultimately affirmed the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, by holding as under:- 5.14 In view of the above clear position of law and respectfully relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. TDS-CPC , UTTER PRADESH

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 361/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Sant, Ld. DR
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 3

260 (Bom), Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) and Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOP (2016) 73 taxmann.com 252 ultimately affirmed the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, by holding as under:- 5.14 In view of the above clear position of law and respectfully relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

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

Section 133(6)

section 40A(2) of the Act. 13. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has taken into account any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has not been taken into

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 4(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6092/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

condone the delay and admit the appeal filed by the assessee. 60. Ground No. 1 relates to the claim of interest by the assessee amounting to `1,43,721/- after disallowing proportionate interest amounting to `2,12,47,194/- out of interest earned by the assessee on term deposits. Both the parties agreed that similar issue has arisen

DCIT CEN CIR 4(3) , MUMBAI vs. GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6213/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

condone the delay and admit the appeal filed by the assessee. 60. Ground No. 1 relates to the claim of interest by the assessee amounting to `1,43,721/- after disallowing proportionate interest amounting to `2,12,47,194/- out of interest earned by the assessee on term deposits. Both the parties agreed that similar issue has arisen

MAYUR SHRIMANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2906/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 51Section 69C

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the appeals are concerned, we have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made