PRAVINCHANDRA JETHALAL AND COMPAY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

condone the delay of 2119 days , wherein main cause for this delay of 2119 days is shown by the assessee is that while preparing for filing an appeal with tribunal challenging penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act which stood confirmed by learned CIT(A), the consultant of the assessee advised the assessee that

AUTOMATIC IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

section 201 for the disallowance of expenditure for non-filling the 26A form to traces. We request you to condone the delay

SME POOL SERIES V AUG 2016,MUMBAI vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER (TDS) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the grounds raised in the present appeal on merits. The Appellant has raised the following grounds in the present 4. appeal:- “Ground No 1: Appellant being treated as assessee in default The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['learned CIT(A)'] from the National Faceless

SAGARMAL KHEMRAJ DAGALIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

26A 121, 1st Floor, Matru Mandir, Mumadevi, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400002. PAN: AAEPD6176C Appellant) : Respondent) Assessee / Appellant by : Shri Bhavin Solanki, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, CIT-DR : 11.09.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against

SHRI TRUST T 2018,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalshri Trust T 2018, Universal Insurance Building, Ground Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aauts1169E V/S

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. In the appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “The following grounds of appeal are distinct and separate and without prejudice to each other. Ground No 1: Invalid delivery of CIT(A) order. On the facts and circumstances

M/S LAKHI FASHION LLP,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-FACELESS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Lakhi Fashion Llp V. National Faceless Appeal Center Delhi Bungalow No. 161, Rsc 4 Opposite Society No. 91 Near Gorai – 1, Borivali (W) Mumbai - 400092 Pan: Aaffl3987L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Shashi Bekal Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Department Represented By :

condoning the delay of 12 days of filing of the appeal, sustained the additions made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Ld.CIT(A) observed that in order to claim the benefit under Rule 31ACB assessee has to be declared as assessee is not in default u/s. 201 of the Act by submitting Form-26A to the Director General

IGLOO DAIRY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)- 59 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleigloo Dairy Services Pvt Vs. Cit(A)-59 Ltd, Room No. 1000B, 703, Dalamal House, Smt. Kg Mittal 206 J. Bajaj Road, Ayurvedic Hospital, Nariman Point, Mumbai Charni Road, Mumbai – 400021. – 400 002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5175Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rupika Mishra. Ar Respondent By : Mr.R A Dhyani. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai Passed U/S 200A & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

26A along with certificate from chartered accountant in respect of demand raised for short deduction of Rs. 1,81,195 on payments made to M/s Wadia Techno Engineering Services Private Limited and interest levied thereon of Rs. 1,08,155. 4. The learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in considering the appellant as an assessee in default under section

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

26A was to be filed for an assessee not to be held as an assessees in default as per proviso to section 201 of the Act. In all fairness, the assessee in the period under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 205-06 could not have contemplated that such a compliance was to be made and therefore in the interest of equity

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), 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

26A was to be filed for an assessee not to be held as an assessees in default as per proviso to section 201 of the Act. In all fairness, the assessee in the period under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 205-06 could not have contemplated that such a compliance was to be made and therefore in the interest of equity

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have