GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

270A of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.26,79,29,490/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to assessee along with notice

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

9 of section 270A. Therefore no penalty can be levied d. The appellant contends that the levy of penalty on addition on account of deemed rent u/s 23(1) r.w.s 23(4) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted. Ground of Appeal No.2: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

9 of section 270A. Therefore no penalty can be levied d. The appellant contends that the levy of penalty on addition on account of deemed rent u/s 23(1) r.w.s 23(4) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted. Ground of Appeal No.2: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards

MANSUKHLAL MOHANLAL MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally so as to advance substantial justice. 4 & S.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF 2. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, but was due to bonafide belief that rectification application filed under section 154 of the Act was under due consideration

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 14,50,038/- by the AO. 6. In this regard Ld. AR reiterated

BHAVESH GHANSHYAM ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTL TAX)-1,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

condoned the delay with a direction to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. Against this order of ITAT, Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) vide M.A. No. 126/Mum/2019 under section 254(2) of the Act. In its M.A., Department raised the ground that order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable

KAVITA JASJIT SINGH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), CIR-3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “GROUND I: THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO FOLLOW PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY NOT ALLOWING ANY PERSONAL HEARING 1. The learned CIT(A) failed to follow the principles

DEEPAK GOPINATH BIRJE,GOREGAON EAST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI,

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Deepak Gopinathbirje Commissioner Of Income Tax A/604, Lakshachandi Heights, Off. Gen. Vs Nfac, Delhi A.K. Vaidya Marg, Gokuldham, Mumbai – 400063. [Pan: Ahcpk6464F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 270A of the Income Tax Act) and rejected application without proper reason as even condition laid down u/s 270AA(2) are satisfied. 9. The Honourable ITAT may please be considered the filing of the appeal before Honourable ITAT delayed 172 days and delay may please be condoned

NITCO PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

270A (9) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made on account of interest income Rs. 25492 which was due to oversight not added in computation of total income and agreed by the appellant vide reply dated 17.01.2021. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under

MOHAMMED SHARIF NIZAMUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

270A of Act before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and not file any appeals against the orders passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 271AAC of the Act. Therefore, I plead before Your Honours to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the appeal back with a direction

MOHAMMED SHARIF NIZAMUDDIN DALVI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

270A of Act before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and not file any appeals against the orders passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 271AAC of the Act. Therefore, I plead before Your Honours to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the appeal back with a direction

POWERCAP CAPACITORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Powercap Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(1), 803, Swastik Chambers, Cst Mumbai. Vs. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaacm 0152 G Appellant Respondent

section 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee submitted that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 82 days. The Ld. Counsel this appeal has been filed with a delay of 82 days

ASCOT REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1-, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Delay condoned. ITA No. 4644& 4643/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18) Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd. 3. As the facts are identical in both these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024, (A.Y. 2016-17) as a lead case. ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal along

ASCOT REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Delay condoned. ITA No. 4644& 4643/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18) Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd. 3. As the facts are identical in both these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024, (A.Y. 2016-17) as a lead case. ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal along

SANDHYA SITAL SANGTANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansandhya Sital Sangtani Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, Ito 28(3)(1), Vashi, Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aadpk5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar-Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 By Nfac Delhi Mumbai [In Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”], Vide This Impugned Order By Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2018- 19, Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On 2 Sandhya Sital Sangtani

270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. We have heard Ld.AR as well as the Ld.DR, the Ld.AR at the very outset submitted that the assessee was suffering from cancer and could not appear before

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

270A of the Act. Non scrutinizing the revised return of Ground No. 6 (6.1 income & 6.2) Non granting credit for advance tax and Ground No. 7 & 8 TDS Not granting interest under section 244A Ground No.9 on refund due ITA.No. 2461/Mum/2022 –AY 2017-18 3. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring

WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ASSTT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

270A of the Act. Non scrutinizing the revised return of Ground No. 6 (6.1 income & 6.2) Non granting credit for advance tax and Ground No. 7 & 8 TDS Not granting interest under section 244A Ground No.9 on refund due ITA.No. 2461/Mum/2022 –AY 2017-18 3. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring