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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 27-06-2012. 2. First, we dealt with ITA No. 3552/Mum/2010 for the AY 2009-10. At the outset, it is noticed that despite the issuance and service of notices for hearing fixing on 13-02-2017 and 20-03-2017, none attended. The notices were served

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 27-06-2012. 2. First, we dealt with ITA No. 3552/Mum/2010 for the AY 2009-10. At the outset, it is noticed that despite the issuance and service of notices for hearing fixing on 13-02-2017 and 20-03-2017, none attended. The notices were served

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

delay is hereby condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: “On facts and circumstances of the case

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

delay is hereby condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: “On facts and circumstances of the case

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

delay is hereby condoned and all the\nappeals are admitted for adjudication.\n3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No.\n3128/Mum/2025 (AY. 2021-22) was taken as the lead case for the sake of\nconvenience and discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following\nground of appeal:\n“On facts and circumstances of the case

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)

condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing of an additional ground is 16 years and no cogent evidence or no explanation has been filed by the assessee to justify the substantial delay of 16 years. In fact

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

condonation of delay only on the basis of quantum of delay involved in each appeal irrespective of the fact that the explanation of the assessee explaining the cause of delay remains the same in all these appeals. That being the case, in our view, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in dismissing assessee’s appeal on the ground ofdelay

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

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condonation of delay in filing an\nappeal\n(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law the Id. CIT(A)\nought to have considered that section 249(2) of The Income Tax Act,\n1961, mentions that the appeal may be admitted if there is a 'sufficient\ncause' in delay in filing an appeal and the lockdown

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 ()

2. Pertinently, though, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the decided issue in favour of the assessee on merits, however, the assessee has filed the cross objection challenging the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the validity of the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of defect in the show causer notice issued under

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Assessing Officer (AO) for A.Y. 2002-03. 2. Order on condonation of delay

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of on 20.12.2018 under the name

MR. NARESH TOPANDAS AIDASANI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC,DELHI/ DCIT-27(2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

delay, though involving some negligence on the part of the staff, was not mala fide and constituted a 'sufficient cause' for condonation, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "250", "249(3)", "246A", "249(2

ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 249(3) empowers learned CIT(A) to admit an appeal after expiry of the said period stipulated u/s 249(2) and condone delay if he is satisfied that the appellant has ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting an appeal within time stipulated u/s 249(2). This is the scheme of the Act so far as powers of learned

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

section 250 of the Act by the ld.CIT(A), no substantive response or explanation was submitted. no substantive response or explanation was submitted. No plausible reasons No plausible reasons were adduced with regard to the delay in filing of appeal were adduced with regard to the delay in filing of appeal as well as well.The failure of the assessee