MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

272 days. The Learned counsel of the assessee referred to the affidavit filed by of the assessee referred to the affidavit filed by Managing Director Managing Director of assessee company wherein he assessee company wherein he has submitted that delay was not submitted that delay was not ‘deliberate’ or ‘contumacious contumacious’ but it was on account of a mistaken

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

272 days. The Learned counsel of the assessee referred to the affidavit filed by of the assessee referred to the affidavit filed by Managing Director Managing Director of assessee company wherein he assessee company wherein he has submitted that delay was not submitted that delay was not ‘deliberate’ or ‘contumacious contumacious’ but it was on account of a mistaken

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

272 ITR 605 wherein the Supreme Court held that the only aspect which needed examination was as to whether the provisions of section 36 (1) (iii) read with section 43 (2) of the act was satisfied or not. Once these are satisfied there is no question of denying the benefit of deduction in the year in which such an amount

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

272 ITR 605 wherein the Supreme Court held that the only aspect which needed examination was as to whether the provisions of section 36 (1) (iii) read with section 43 (2) of the act was satisfied or not. Once these are satisfied there is no question of denying the benefit of deduction in the year in which such an amount

GAKKO BUNKA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX (NFAC), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh() & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

condoning the delay in filing the Form No.10,however, the same is still pending. The Ld.Counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Dadar Jain vs Income-tax Officer (E), Mumbai reported in (2019) 111 taxmann.com 272(Mumbai-Trib.) and submitted that Tribunal has accepted the Form No.10 filed manually and allowed the claim

ADDL CIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

272 (Del.). The Hon'ble High Court held that section 14A of the Act will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The assessee has made strategic investment in the group companies and no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court

ADDL CIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

272 (Del.). The Hon'ble High Court held that section 14A of the Act will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The assessee has made strategic investment in the group companies and no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court

RAMESH LALAWAT,VASHI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

272)(91), u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.09.2023, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under: 2 Ramesh Lalawat AY 2017-18 “1. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

DCIAT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNDARAM MULTIPAP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection. 13. The Learned AR submitted that the plea of the assessee in cross objection is that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is required to be made, since the assessee has not received any exempt dividend income. He submitted that the prayer of the assessee is supported by the decisions rendered

PREMIUM TOWER CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

delay has already been condoned. 7. Ground No. 2, raised by the assessee has not been pressed and hence the same is stands dismissed. 4 Premium Tower Co. Op Housing Ltd, Mumbai. 8. Ground No. 3, raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of deduction

VIMALA JAYANTILAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

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

272 (Mad HC)]\nWhere expenditure was incurred on replacing old parts with new ones without\nincreasing the value or efficiency, it was treated as revenue in nature.\n4. Excess Depreciation on Rig HR-180 (2022-New)\nThat the Ld. AO erred in disallowing 239,33,001/- on the ground of excess\ndepreciation claimed at 27.12% instead of 15% without giving

AMIT PRABHUNATH JAISWAL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -28(1)(1), MUMBAI

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's educational background and lack of computer literacy. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal found the assessee's non-compliance and lack of diligence unacceptable and imposed a cost.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

ARCHANA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 1(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalarchana Foundation More House 28, New India Housing Society North South Road No.11, Jvpd, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aabta0873E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Amit Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

condonation of delay is perverse in nature (page -6 of Ld CIT(A) order). In the given situation Ld. CIT(A) was duty bound to wait for the outcome of petition filed before Ld CIT(Exemption) by assessee. His denial of filing the same before him proves his gross negligence and fractured delivery of justice. 7. This formality of filing

POMEGRANATE MEDIA (PTY) LTD,SOUTH AFRICA vs. DCIT(IT)-3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

272 Kent Avenue, Randburg, Gauteng ……………. Appellant 2194, P.O. Box 71917 Bryanston, Gauteng 2012 PAN – AACCE7009G v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Transaction–3(3)(2) Mumbai (Earlier the jurisdiction was ……………. Respondent with Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Transaction–2(2)(1) Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Tilak Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing – 21.02.2020 Date

SRM SITES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-12 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Srm Sites Pvt. Ltd., The Commissioner Of Income Shree Ram Mills Premises, Tax (Appeals)-14 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aancs0873M (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Srm Sites Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer-7(2)(4), Shree Ram Mills Premises, Mumbai Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aancs0873M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Sharma (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2019

condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the interest of justice and permitted the Ld. counsel for the assessee to argue the case of the assessee on merits. 10. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was awarded construction contract by the M/s Shree Ram Urban Infra Ltd. which is a holding company

ST. GREGORIOS EDUCATION AND MEDICAL TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMTION , MUMBAI

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

condonation of delay of Form-10B.\n4. The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the orders of the revenue authorities\non the record.\n5. During the course of arguments before the Bench, the Ld. AR submitted\nthat the reason for the delay in filing the return had been duly explained before\nthe revenue authorities. It was contended that the individual

VIVEK MEHROTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

272 ITR 560 (Annexure 2 hereto). The Madras High Court in Universal Radiators v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 33 STC 341 (Annexure 3 hereto) has held that the additional ground must relate back to the date of filing of the appeal. If this position is accepted than there is no delay. The Assessee submits that though the attention

VIKALP GOUTAM PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-33(1)(7), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Act has been passed by the learned CIT(A) on 13/12/2023. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal is on account of the circumstances beyond his control and there is no malafide intention in filing