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

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

279 ITR (Bom) 146, wherein they have concluded that, if the assessee has initially taken conscious decision not to pursue further proceedings against the adverse order of the Tribunal then, decision rendered by the High Court in favour of the assessee on the same issue in later assessment year cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

279 ITR (Bom) 146, wherein they have concluded that, if the assessee has initially taken conscious decision not to pursue further proceedings against the adverse order of the Tribunal then, decision rendered by the High Court in favour of the assessee on the same issue in later assessment year cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

279 ITR (Bom) 146, wherein they have concluded that, if the assessee has initially taken conscious decision not to pursue further proceedings against the adverse order of the Tribunal then, decision rendered by the High Court in favour of the assessee on the same issue in later assessment year cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

279 ITR (Bom) 146, wherein they have concluded that, if the assessee has initially taken conscious decision not to pursue further proceedings against the adverse order of the Tribunal then, decision rendered by the High Court in favour of the assessee on the same issue in later assessment year cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

279 ITR (Bom) 146, wherein they have concluded that, if the assessee has initially taken conscious decision not to pursue further proceedings against the adverse order of the Tribunal then, decision rendered by the High Court in favour of the assessee on the same issue in later assessment year cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD ( FORMELRY TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

279 ITR (Bom) 146, wherein they have concluded that, if the assessee has initially taken conscious decision not to pursue further proceedings against the adverse order of the Tribunal then, decision rendered by the High Court in favour of the assessee on the same issue in later assessment year cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

279 ITR (Bom) 146, wherein they have concluded that, if the assessee has initially taken conscious decision not to pursue further proceedings against the adverse order of the Tribunal then, decision rendered by the High Court in favour of the assessee on the same issue in later assessment year cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay

SPRIT INFRAPOWER & MULTIVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

279 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the reasons for the delay. The relevant extract from the affidavit as given below: 4 ITA 1589/Mum/2025 Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. “1) I am the Tax Manager of M/s Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited ('the Company

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGAON EAST vs. I.T.O 6(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

279.” Further on the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil Appeal 4494 of 2001is reproduced as under: “In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between

INDACO JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGOAN EAST vs. WARD 6(3)(2), AAYAKRBHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

279.” Further on the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil Appeal 4494 of 2001is reproduced as under: “In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between

M/S. SALONI JEWELLERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the ad-hoc disallowance levied by Assessing Officer of printing and stationery expenses, exhibition expenses and Labor charges expenses amounting to Rs. 1,89,75,279/-. Assessment Year

M/S. SALONI JEWELLERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the ad-hoc disallowance levied by Assessing Officer of printing and stationery expenses, exhibition expenses and Labor charges expenses amounting to Rs. 1,89,75,279/-. Assessment Year

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 4. In the present appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

SAHAKARI SHIKSHAN VIKAS SAMOOH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS - WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

condoning the delay in filing Form 10B and claim benefit of section 11 of the Act. Thus, the ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is hereby rejected.” 5. Suffice to say, the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of denial of the impugned section 11 exemption on account of the fact that the assessee had belatedly filed

SAHAKARI SHIKSHAN VIKAS SAMOOH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) - WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

condoning the delay in filing Form 10B and claim benefit of section 11 of the Act. Thus, the ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is hereby rejected.” 5. Suffice to say, the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of denial of the impugned section 11 exemption on account of the fact that the assessee had belatedly filed

NSK ADVISORS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has challenged the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on the ground that there was no incriminating material found and seized during the search proceeding and has also challenged the disallowance of expenses debited to profit and loss account amounting to Rs.2,89,667/- and Rs.11

ACIT 3(3)(1) MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SIROYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay of 14days for assessee are condoned. C.O. No. 166/Mum/2024 C.O. No. 167/Mum/2024 Siroya Developers Pvt Ltd 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - A.Y. 2015-16 1 "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the- addition of Rs.41,63,778/- made under section