DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA DEVELOPER PVT LTD), MUMBAI

condoned and appeal of the revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3 M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., ITA No. 1290/Mum/2022 – Asst Year 2015-16 – Revenue Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) 3. The only identical issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO SHREENIVAS COTTON MILLS LTD), MUMBAI

condoned and appeal of the revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3 M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., ITA No. 1290/Mum/2022 – Asst Year 2015-16 – Revenue Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) 3. The only identical issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating that the order of penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating that the order of penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section

KASHYAP M. TANNA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

condoning the delay. 4. In the present case, penalty has been levied on repayment of loan of Rs. 1 lakh otherwise than by account payee cheque or bank draft to Kunty M. Tanna, that is, in cash in violation of section 269T

PREMJI BHURALAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the validity of the re-opening u/s

Bench: Your Honors Should Have Been Filed Within 60 Days Of Receipt Of The Order Of Cxit(A) But The Same Could Not Be Done.

delay of 437 days is condoned. 3. The brief facts qua the issues raised are that the assessee is an individual who has filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 28.9.2012 and declared total income of Rs.14,60,787/-. The said return of income was accepted u/s. 143(1). 4. Thereafter, on the basis of certain information

ENCEE DYING & PTG, WORKS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 9(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhencee Dying & Ptg. Works Pvt. Additional Commissioner Of Ltd., Plot No. 25, Cama Income Tax, Range 9(1) Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Goregoan (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aaace6180Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Shridhar (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr)

delay in filing the appeal the condoned and appeal be admitted and hard accordingly. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessing officer while passing assessment order for Assessment Year 2004-05 noted that the assessee has made payment of loan to various parties otherwise then by cross cheque, thereby violated the provisions of section 269Tof Income