SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA,THANE vs. WARD 3(2) THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

271D pertaining to the assessment year" 2011-2012 and the appeal is delayed by 989 days. 3 I.T.A. No. 5824/Mum/2025 2. That the appellant humbly submits that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The delay has occurred due to bonafide reasons which were beyond the control of the appellant, as detailed

NAZIMA A KAZI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1408/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बिाम/ Nazima A Kazi, Jcit Rg 22(3) Flat No. B-1304, Plot -12, Navi Mumbai 400705 Shailesh Towers Chs, V. Sector 19A, Navi Mumbai-400706 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Alqpk5996E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. B.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma Rao

271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”) for AY 2009-10. 2. This appeal has been filed late by the assessee by 183 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act . The assessee has filed I.T.A. No.1408/Mum/2017 application praying for condonation of delay of 183 days which is supported by an affidavit

KEYUR MADHUSUDAN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 14(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4565/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Keyur Madhusudan Shah बिधम/ Addl Cit Rg 14(1) 583, Jagannath Shankarsheth Mumbai Pin: Vs. Rd, Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahps4084K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Keyur Shah Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan ( Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.10.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.10.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2007- 08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-25, Mumbai Has Ignored All The Documentary Facts & Evidence Submitted By The Appellant During The Appeal Hearings Including Copies Of All The Bills/Vouchers Of Expenses Aggregating To Rs.9,59,925/- Which Were Also Submitted To Him & Instead Only Relied Upon His Own Interpretation Of The Narration In One Entry In The Ledger Statement.

Section 269SS of the Act u/s 271D of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. The assessee has filed the present appeal

PREMJI BHURALAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the validity of the re-opening u/s

Bench: Your Honors Should Have Been Filed Within 60 Days Of Receipt Of The Order Of Cxit(A) But The Same Could Not Be Done.

delay of 437 days is condoned. 3. The brief facts qua the issues raised are that the assessee is an individual who has filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 28.9.2012 and declared total income of Rs.14,60,787/-. The said return of income was accepted u/s. 143(1). 4. Thereafter, on the basis of certain information

KAMAL DWARKADAS GADODIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT 24(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

271D of the Act, date of order 26/07/2018. 2 Kamal Dwarkadas Gadodia 2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with delay of 7 days before the ITAT. The ld. AR submitted that the condonation petition with the notarized affidavit which is duly executed on 10/11/2025 by the assessee and sufficient cause is duly explained

M/S ANDAZ TRADING & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO -WARD 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, despite full compliance with TDS provisions and reconciliation of Form 26AS with expenses. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Impugned Order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case, and therefore deserve to be set-aside

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA DEVELOPER PVT LTD), MUMBAI

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3 M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., ITA No. 1290/Mum/2022 – Asst Year 2015-16 – Revenue Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) 3. The only identical issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3 M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., ITA No. 1290/Mum/2022 – Asst Year 2015-16 – Revenue Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) 3. The only identical issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO SHREENIVAS COTTON MILLS LTD), MUMBAI

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3 M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., ITA No. 1290/Mum/2022 – Asst Year 2015-16 – Revenue Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) 3. The only identical issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.CC-7(3)., MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(SUCCESSSOR TO PALAVA DWELLERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3 M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., ITA No. 1290/Mum/2022 – Asst Year 2015-16 – Revenue Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) 3. The only identical issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified

SILVER STARS vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 16(3),,

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

sections. According to the partner of the assessee firm Shri Bharat J. Mehta, service of the appellate order is only 09-12-2005 and no contrary evidence is available on record that the appellate order was earlier served on the assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides on this issue and gone through the facts and circumstances

SILVER STARS,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 16(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

sections. According to the partner of the assessee firm Shri Bharat J. Mehta, service of the appellate order is only 09-12-2005 and no contrary evidence is available on record that the appellate order was earlier served on the assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides on this issue and gone through the facts and circumstances

SILVER STARS,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 16(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

sections. According to the partner of the assessee firm Shri Bharat J. Mehta, service of the appellate order is only 09-12-2005 and no contrary evidence is available on record that the appellate order was earlier served on the assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides on this issue and gone through the facts and circumstances

SILVER STARS,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 16(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

sections. According to the partner of the assessee firm Shri Bharat J. Mehta, service of the appellate order is only 09-12-2005 and no contrary evidence is available on record that the appellate order was earlier served on the assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides on this issue and gone through the facts and circumstances

SILVER STARS,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 16(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

sections. According to the partner of the assessee firm Shri Bharat J. Mehta, service of the appellate order is only 09-12-2005 and no contrary evidence is available on record that the appellate order was earlier served on the assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides on this issue and gone through the facts and circumstances