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

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

1), Mumbai (in short ‘DCIT’) for the A.Y. 2009- 10 vide order dated 30.12.2011 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax 2 Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The reassessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 20.02.2015. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) erred in pass The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) erred in passing the order us 263, ing the order us 263, holding the assessment order as passed as erroneous and holding the assessment order as passed as erroneous and holding the assessment order as passed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without properly

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of t Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the year under he case are that for the year under consideration no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. consideration no regular return of income was filed

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

condoned the delay. 4. Now, coming to issue No. 1&2 in which the assessee took the plea of limitation. It is the argument of the representative of the assessee that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.9.2003, which was served upon the assessee on 24.9.2003 and the proceedings

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)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Assessment Order, dated 27/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was set aside as being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

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

delay in filing appeal is accordingly condoned and parties were and parties were directed to argue the appeal on the appeal on merit. 3. Briefly stated fact acts of the case are that against the return of that against the return of income filed by the assessee on 27/09/2015 declaring total loss of income filed by the assessee on 27/09/2015

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The delay in filing of appeal has been attributed to the unprecedented situation caused by COVID-19 Pandemic. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking suo-motu cognisance of the hardship caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic to the litigants extended the period of limitation under General Law of Limitation and under Special

DAWAT E ISLAMI HIND,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to satisfy the condition for the condonation of delay provided in the aforesaid Circular No. 10/2019, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide assessment order dated 30/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act and computed the assessee‟s total

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

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

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

HI-ROCK CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 32 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the case was heard on merit. 10. On merit the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil contractor. The main business activities of the assessee involves taking up contract/sub- 6 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

263 of the Act. 2.20. A division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. M/s Crescent Construction Co. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and made following observations. (page