SHWETA AJAYKUMAR PAHARIA,JAYMALA APARTMENT,MARVE ROAD, MALAD WEST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(3)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed against me on 29.12.2022 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). 3. That as per law, the appeal against the said order was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the CIT(A). 4. That the CIT(A) order

SUNNY MADHUKAR BHAGAT,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid\nobservations

delay of 404 days\ninvolved in the present appeal is condoned.\n6.\nThe brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a non-filer during\nthe year under consideration. On a perusal of the Individual transaction\nstatement (ITS) in the case of the assessee for the year under\nconsideration, the following information was gathered:\nSr.\nNo.\n1.\nF.Y

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

275 as on 31.3.2005, comprises of machinery hire charges received / receivable of Rs.10,01,60,225 by the assessee from them and the share of profit of the appellant in the said JV aggregates to Rs.8,24,05,845; both, together, aggregating to Rs.l~,25,66,070. Hence the debit balance the said JV is not on account

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

275 as on 31.3.2005, comprises of machinery hire charges received / receivable of Rs.10,01,60,225 by the assessee from them and the share of profit of the appellant in the said JV aggregates to Rs.8,24,05,845; both, together, aggregating to Rs.l~,25,66,070. Hence the debit balance the said JV is not on account

MUKESH VASANTKUMAR CHANDAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

delay is supported by\naffidavit and that no mala fide intention is discernible, we are\nsatisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from\nfiling the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the\ndelay of 591 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the\nappeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.\nFacts of the Case

NARENDRAKUMAR LALCHAND JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarendrakumar Lalchand Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co, Cas Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 021 Pan: Acwpj4288P Appellant Respondent

condonation of any perceived delay, as the appellant was granted multiple opportunities to comply, aligning with the principles of natural justice. The procedural delays in penalty proceedings, especially when opportunities are provided to the assessee, do not render the proceedings void, provided the principles of natural justice are adhered to. The limitation under section 275

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

delay in filing cross objections for all the\n assessment years is condoned.\n1.5. During the course of hearing it was submitted that appeals/cross\nobjections for the Assessment Year 2013-14 could be taken as\nlead matters, and that the findings/adjudication on issues raised\nin the appeals/cross objections for Assessment Year 2013-14\nwould apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals/cross

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 275

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 275

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 5. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following ground: – “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT (A) justified deleting disallowance of Finance Lease Rental Payments, when the same

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2.1. The return of the income for the assessment year in question was filed by the assessee on 13.10.2005 which was processed u/s 143(1)(a). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 26.10.2007. The total income declared by the assessee

DCIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. PROVOGUE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

275 under section 14A r/w rule 8D towards expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The assessee challenged the addition before the first appellate authority. 4. As far as the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A is concerned, it was argued before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by the assessee that such addition having not been made

ACIT CIR 7(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodacit, Circle-7(2)(2) M/S Novartis India Pvt. Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, Sandoz House, Shivsagar Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 018 Pan – Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 275(1)(a) of the Act and hence the penalty order should be held as null and void. 3. Without prejudice to Ground no 1, the respondents submit that the ACIT's action of issuing penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 28.08.2013 does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty was sought

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly