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

271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 51 days in filing of appeal by the revenue

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

271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 51 days in filing of appeal by the revenue

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating that the order of penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating that the order of penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section

KASHYAP M. TANNA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

section 271E of Rs.1 lakh. 2 अमेर"कन ए"स"ेस ब"क "ल"मटेड M/s American Express ITA 1064/Mum/2014 2. At the outset, the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 3 days. In support, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay

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

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

ENCEE DYING & PTG, WORKS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 9(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhencee Dying & Ptg. Works Pvt. Additional Commissioner Of Ltd., Plot No. 25, Cama Income Tax, Range 9(1) Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Goregoan (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aaace6180Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Shridhar (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr)

271E of Rs. 12,87,639/- in contravention of provision of section 269T of Income tax Act 1961. (2) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte did not considered the evidence placed before Additional Commissioner of income tax Range-9(1) Mumbai and recorded by him in his order levying penalty