DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

condoning the delay, we admit the cross objection for adjudication on merit. 6. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a co-operative bank registered with the Government of Maharashtra. As stated by the assessing officer, the assessee is engaged in banking operation as per framework of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India

FORBES & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. Dcit, Circle 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan Ground Floor, Forbes Bldg. Vs. M.K. Road Charanjit Rai Marg Mumbai 400020 Fort, Mumbai 400001 Pan - Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

condone the same in the interest of justice and equity. The appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 is accordingly admitted for consideration and adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 3.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of, inter alia, manufacturing of yarn, engineering goods and shipping, filed its return of income

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. SAI ANAND CONSTRCTION, THANE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sai Anand Construction Tax Shop No. 22-27, Saitirth Circle-3, Room No. 02, 6 Th Siddarth Nagar, Kopri Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Colony Thane(E)-400 603 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aakfm2891B

B- Wing, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W)-400 604 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : Saurabhkumar Rai, DR Assessee by : Shashi Tulsiyan, AR Date of hearing: 08-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 17-04-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These cross appeal are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai

NARENDRAKUMAR LALCHAND JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarendrakumar Lalchand Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co, Cas Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 021 Pan: Acwpj4288P Appellant Respondent

271(1)(b) is barred by limitation. This contention is misconceived. As per section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the limitation period for passing a penalty order, where no appeal is filed against the assessment order, is the end of the financial year in which the assessment proceedings are completed or six months from the end of the month

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

271 (1) (c). This penalty order along with notice dated 27/16/2012 was also issued and served upon the appellant. Against this also appellant have filed an appeal bearing number 266/13 - 14 on 14/11/13. 3.8 Thus, here the appellant have given wrong date of receipt of the assessment order to show that there is delay of only 364 days, which

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

271 (1) (c). This penalty order along with notice dated 27/16/2012 was also issued and served upon the appellant. Against this also appellant have filed an appeal bearing number 266/13 - 14 on 14/11/13. 3.8 Thus, here the appellant have given wrong date of receipt of the assessment order to show that there is delay of only 364 days, which

ALCOM PRODUCTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Alcon Products, The Cit (A)-1, Shop No. 36, Amrapali Shopping Room No. 29, A Wing, Arcade, Pokharan Road No. 2, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Road No. 16-Z, Thane - 400601 Wagle Industrial Estate, Pan: Aajfa6379H Thane - 400604

B) to section 271 (1)(c) regarding deemed concealment particularly when the explanation offered by the appellant was bona fine and all the material facts were disclosed by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellate acceded to the enhancement of the income in order to avoid needless litigation and buy peace and paid taxes

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

B)” 3. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the impugned appeal by 101 days. Before us, the assessee has referred the affidavit filed on 04.08.2023 and submitted that assesse was pursuing two appeals before the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 both

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 273B of the Act and hence the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 273B of the Act and hence the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there

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

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

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

DEVRISHI CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed a petition supported by an affidavit seeking condonation

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Income Tax Officer- 305, 2a, Raheja Classique, 9(2)(3), Room No.601A, 6th Floor, New Link Road, Vs. Oshowara, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 061 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAAPT4832B

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Income Tax Officer- 305, 2a, Raheja Classique, 9(2)(3), Room No.601A, 6th Floor, New Link Road, Vs. Oshowara, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 061 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAAPT4832B

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