FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING & RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

271B of the Acton the ground of delay. 3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 23/07/2025 condoned the delay for similar reasons in filing the appeal by the assessee against the penalty order passed under section

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING AND RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

271B of the Acton the ground of delay. 3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 23/07/2025 condoned the delay for similar reasons in filing the appeal by the assessee against the penalty order passed under section

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING AND RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

271B of the Acton the ground of delay. 3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 23/07/2025 condoned the delay for similar reasons in filing the appeal by the assessee against the penalty order passed under section

BHAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -36, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 4 years is hereby condoned and appeal is ordered to be registered and being heard on merits. 6. The assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals are time barred

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals are time barred

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals are time barred

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals are time barred

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals are time barred

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals are time barred

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], inter- alia, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. The present appeals are delayed by 144 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay

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

LATA KESHAO THAOKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelata Keshao Thaokar V. Ito– Ward – 28(2)(1) B-103, Balaji Complex, Sector-46A Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex Mumbai - 400703 Plot 3C, Nerul (West) Navi Mumbai Pan: Afbpt2685Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajesh Shah Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

271B of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and they have sustained the penalty as assessee failed to establish reasonable cause and hence dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The appellant request your honour to condone the delay in filing an appeal before

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

section was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. In so far as ; challenge to initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act is concerned, the same is premature at this stage. The ground No.6 of appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 17. The ground No.7 of the appeal is general in nature, hence, require

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

section was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. In so far as ; challenge to initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act is concerned, the same is premature at this stage. The ground No.6 of appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 17. The ground No.7 of the appeal is general in nature, hence, require