CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

delay is condoned. 4. Coming to ITA No. 7130/M/2025, we observe that the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 30.03.2014, ultimately made an addition of Rs.8,23,49,198/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer simultaneously also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

delay is condoned. 4. Coming to ITA No. 7130/M/2025, we observe that the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 30.03.2014, ultimately made an addition of Rs.8,23,49,198/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer simultaneously also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

delay is condoned. 4. Coming to ITA No. 7130/M/2025, we observe that the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 30.03.2014, ultimately made an addition of Rs.8,23,49,198/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer simultaneously also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

MR. SURESH HENRY THOMAS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay in filing both the aforesaid appeals of 357 days is hereby condoned and appeals are ordered to be registered and is being heard on merits. 4. The assessee by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred

MR SURESH HENRY THOMAS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay in filing both the aforesaid appeals of 357 days is hereby condoned and appeals are ordered to be registered and is being heard on merits. 4. The assessee by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred

EUREKA OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE (1), THANE

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

Delay condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of call centre and had filed its return of income dated 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of Rs.21,07,072/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS for verifying “high ratio of refund to TDS, certificate

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay of three\ndays in filing the cross objection and admit the same for\nadjudication.\n4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee had filed\nreturn of income on 31.10.2005 declaring total income at\nRs.43,80,32,246/- under the normal provisions of the Act and\nRs.1,98,56,14,437/- u/s 115JB

VIJAY MORU MHATRE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THANE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

condone the delay in filing the impugned appeal. 4. Fact in brief is that in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act the assessee has shown income from house property of Rs.4,00,137/-. Thereafter a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee

JANSEVA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSHTHA MARYADIT,MAHIM vs. ITO 22(1)(6), LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal and justice-oriented approach ought to be adopted so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and that refusal to condone delay may result in a Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanshtha Maryadit

ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": ["143(3)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "246A", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "249", "5", "5", "271(1)(b)", "144"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

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

sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act by orders dated 26.09.2014. (c) Officer. I have not received any of the aforesaid three orders framed by the Assessing (d) Sometime in the month of January 2020, I received a call from the Income-tax Department for recovery of the outstanding demand for the year under reference

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1)(2), BANGALURU

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm &\Nms Padmavathy S, Am\Ni.T.A. No. 915/Mum/2017\N(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\Nhewlett Packard Financial\Nservices (India) Pvt. Ltd.,\N24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main\Nroad, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.\Npan: Aabcc5967C\Nappellant)\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Nacit, Circle-2(1)(2),\Naayakar Bhavan,\Nvs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.\N:\N:\N:\N:\Nrespondent)\Nshri Percy Pardiwala &\Nmr. Ninad Patade, Ar\Nshri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr\N22.09.2025\N21.10.2025\Norder\Nper Padmavathy S, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 25.10.2016 For Assessment Years (Ay)\N2011-12. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:\N(I) Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation On \"Hp Indigo Digital Press\Nprinter\" @ 60% - Ground No. 1.1 To 1.7\N(Ii) Treatment Of Ceased Liability As Income U/S 41 - Ground No. 2.1 To\N2.9\N(Iii) Disallowance Of Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Ground\Nno. 3.1 To 3.9\N(Iv) Disallowance Of Provision For Tds Certificates & Addition To\Nbook Profits U/S.115Jb - Ground No.

condonation\npowers lie only with CBDT. U/s 119(2)(b) the CBDT may, if it considers it\ndesirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship to an assessee,\nauthorise any income tax authority to admit any such application or claim\nafter expiry of the period specified under the Act. Section 119(2)(b) is\nreproduced as under

FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 69 of the Act deserves to be deleted. deserves to be deleted. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 278 days in filing

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the learned Assessing Officer levied the penalty of ₹11,26,000/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The penalty order was passed on 26th September, 2014. 011. The assessee aggrieved with the same preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) passed an order