MAYUR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

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

condonation of delay, the supporting affidavit of the Assessee and confirmation letter issued by the earlier chartered accountant engaged by the Assessee for handling tax matters for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the present appeal was preferred against the order of revision passed under Section 263

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

condonation petition. He narrated the fact that the PCIT-12 Mumbai passed revision order under section 263 of the Act for the relevant assessment year 2009-10 on 30-03-2017, which was served on the assessee on 30-03-2017 itself. The due date for filing of appeal before the Tribunal was 28th May 2017, but ultimately appeal

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)

delay of 372 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. 8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the Assessee that as per Section 36(1)(viia

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

UPAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the asses

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

Section 263 of the Act thereby assuming jurisdiction under the said provisions. The Hon'ble assuming jurisdiction under the said provisions. The Hon'ble assuming jurisdiction under the said provisions. The Hon'ble PCIT further erred in holding that the assessment completed in PCIT further erred in holding that the assessment completed in PCIT further erred in holding that

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

section 263 of Act. The appellant has correctly applied condonation petition to CBDT and the same is pending. The Hon'ble Madras High court's decision quoted in Ld.JM's order is against the rejection of application of applicant by CBDT shows the power to condone delay

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

condoning delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "144B", "250", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay of 1114 days in filing

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. However, there is delay of 252 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in support of the application. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that pursuant

HATHWAY INVESTMENT P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -12, , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1599/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Hathway Investments Private Limited. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corner Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. Pan: Aaach-1675-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-12, Mumbai, Room No.127, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2 2. This appeal is time barred by 33 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

ANEEKA UNIVERSAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-9, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] setting aside the Assessment Order, dated 29.03.2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation vide order dated 29.11.2019, whereby the application filed by the Appellant ITA. No. 7115/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 seeking condonation of delay

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

delay of 372 days\nin filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to\nadjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in\nthe present appeal.\n8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the\n Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the\nAssessee that as per Section 36(1)(viia

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

LIONS CLUB OF MALAD BORIVALI CHARITY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lions Club Of Malad Borivali Cit Exemptions, Charity Trust, 601,6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills, Pd Lions College, Sv Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026. Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaatl 1407 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Shankarlal Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

263 be cancelled. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted the Registry has pointed out a delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. the Registry has pointed out a delay of 7 days

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

263 days in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble Court observed that Law of limitation being a substantive law, the appeals are to be filed within a time limit. Filing an appeal within a period of limitation is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. Therefore, the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

263 days in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble Court observed that Law of limitation being a substantive law, the appeals are to be filed within a time limit. Filing an appeal within a period of limitation is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. Therefore, the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

263 of the Principal Commissioner of Incom Commissioner of Income-tax be struck down. 2. At the outset, the t the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that of the assessee submitted that this appeal was filed with a delay of 272 days. The Learn this appeal was filed with a delay of 272 days. The Learn this

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

263 of the Principal Commissioner of Incom Commissioner of Income-tax be struck down. 2. At the outset, the t the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that of the assessee submitted that this appeal was filed with a delay of 272 days. The Learn this appeal was filed with a delay of 272 days. The Learn this

CHIRAG CHANDRAKANT MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-27,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner Of C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Income Tax-27, Mumbai 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: (Aabpm5091L) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

section 263 with the prayer for condonation of delay. Assessee was well within his rights to file the present appeal