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(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

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.(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

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions

KANAIYALAL B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhkanaiyalal B. Shah Jcit Range-19(2), 31, Jai Bhavani Society, Mumbai. Vs. 3 Rr Thakker Marg, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Divya Jeswant (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr)

273B of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is not the owner of the bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 initiated on the basis the alleged bank account of HSBC Bank, Geneva were dropped in the case of Appellant

ADARSH HEGDE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiadarsh Hegde Vs. Dcit,Central Circle-8(1) 5Th Floor Room No.656, 6Th Floor Diamond Square Aaykar Bhawan Cst Road, Kalina M.K.Road Santacruz (East) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aabph5562P Appellant) .. Respondent)

273B of the I.T.Act, 1961. We further noted that ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by filing an appeal late, rather it creates undue hardship to the litigant, because of tax demand. Therefore, when the appellant gives reasons, for not filing the appeal within the due date prescribed under that and such reasons are supported by necessary sworn

AGILITY LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both Department’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

condone the delay of 217 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), however, we direct the assessee to pay cost of `10,000/– for each of the appeals to the Revenue. On payment of cost as directed above and furnishing the proof before the concerned authority, assessee’s appeals shall be taken up for hearing by the learned

SHRI VINAY D. NARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT TDS, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2181/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri. Vinay D. Narkar, बिाम/ Addl. Cit(Tds), 1/3, James House, Ground Floor, B-Wing, Dsouza Wadi, Qureshi Mansion, V. Waglre Estate, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Shivaji Nagar Road No. 3, Thane-West, Thane-400604 Thane-400602 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aespn7371K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Shri. Rajiv Gubgaotra (Dr) Revenue By:

condone the delay of 1 day in filing this appeal late beyond time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act and admit this appeal. We order accordingly. 3.2 The assessee is holding Income-tax deduction Account Number(TAN) PNEV07443C allotted by Income Tax Department.The assessee being deductor of Income-tax at source has delayed filing of quarterly statement

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

condone the delay in filing appeal late by the assessee by 183 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) and admit this appeal to be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law. It is well established principal of jurisprudence when technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, Courts are inclined to lean in favour of substantial justice unless malafide

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

273B of the Act, we do not have any other alternative but to confirm the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the levy of penalty of ₹60,000/- under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 09. ITA No. 1337/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

273B of the Act, we do not have any other alternative but to confirm the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the levy of penalty of ₹60,000/- under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 09. ITA No. 1337/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condoned. 2. The NFAC failed to appreciate that penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs.5,000/- is not leviable as reopening is bad in law as same is done on dead person and there was reasonale cause for not filing the same and hence the case of the assessee is covered by section 273B of the Act and hence

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condoned. 2. The NFAC failed to appreciate that penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs.5,000/- is not leviable as reopening is bad in law as same is done on dead person and there was reasonale cause for not filing the same and hence the case of the assessee is covered by section 273B of the Act and hence

THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIR. OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPITION)-RG.-2, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

condoned. " 7. The AO did not accept the assessee’s explanation. He did not deal with the any of the case law mentioned by the assessee. He did not deal with the reasonable cause 7 The University of Mumbai attributed that assessee was under an honest belief that assessee was not required to file return of income under the provisions

SANJAY K. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-19(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rehman & Shri Ravish Soodsanjay K. Shah, Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 31, Jay Bhavani Society, Range 19(2), 3 Ridge Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 006

273B of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is not the owner of the bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 initiated on the basis the alleged bank account of HSBC Bank, Geneva were dropped in the case of Appellant

REKHA MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condoning the delay is reversed as the appeal was filed within time. However, the Ld. CIT (A) also decided the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts are that assessee is an individual and had declared income under the head ‘income from house property’ from rent of Rs.26,00,000/- received from tenant SVIL Mines Ltd in respect of property

RITU VERMA,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , THANE

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the following grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT (A)'] has grossly erred in upholding

STATE BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT-TDS,RANGE2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year 2016-17

section 273B shall be applicable. v. The appellant craves, leave to add to alter, modify, revise, or delete any grounds (s) in the interest of justice.” 2. There is a delay in filing the appeal by 77 days. The assessee filed application for condonation