DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

1), Nagpur. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned counsel of the assessee has made the following submissions, as mentioned in para number 7 of the said case, the relevant para which resembles facts of our case in respect of satisfaction note is reproduced as under : 7. Learned counsel of the assessee made written as well oral submissions

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 ( 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

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

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

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The challenge in this case is rectification order passed by the ld.CIT(A) u/s.154 of the I.T.Act. It is considered gainful to refer to the order of ld.CIT(A), wherein he has held as under:- 1. " In the above appeal order No. CIT(A)-48/I.T.-180/DCCC-2(1)/2017-18 dated

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

UTI ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Uti Asset Management Co. Addl. Cit Rg 10(1) P. Ltd., बनाम/ R.No.574, 5Th Floor, Uti Tower Gn Block 5Th Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Floor, Bkc Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai -400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacu6260F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jehangir D. Mistry (Ar) Shri B.C.S. Naik ( Cit -Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 9/12/2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 6/01/2016

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax -10 dated 28.03.2011. 4. In absence of the Chairman & Managing Director, the Committee of Directors and thereafter ACEO were burdened with various decision making responsibilities, to follow certain procedures/internal departmental processes and advices were to be sought. 5. For the above reasons

NAJEEB CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 2(1),, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3194/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Najeeb Charitable Trust A-28, Everest Apartment, J.P Road, Jogeshwari (West) Mumbai- 400 053 Pan : Aaatn0425G

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

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

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

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1