KHAJA MOHIADDIN G. SYED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(1)(1)/30(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2011-12 Shri Khaja Mohiaddin Income Tax Officer, G.Syed, Ward-31(2)(2), बनाम/ B-202, Sagar Tower, Room No.709, 7Th Floor, C- Vs. Aqsa Masjid Lane, 11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Opp. 24 Karat, Off. S.V. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Fairdeal Road, Bandra (East), Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 Pan No.Abhps6792D ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay

NIKHIL R. DHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil R Dharia, Acit-19(2), B-7, Utkarsh Tilak Nagar, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ V. P. Road, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Addpd8065A

delay is condoned. 3. The next ground raised by the assessee, challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). The ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Neha Paranjape, did not press this ground, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The only effective ground agitated by the ld. counsel

MULUND SAMATA CO-OP HSG SOC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

delay and is therefore not justifiable. Considering the said explanation of the assessee, we condone the same and take up the matter for its meritorious adjudication since in the given set of facts, the issue before us is no longer res integra as extensively dealt by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of the PCIT vs. Totagar Cooperative

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

MISC BERHAD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice, that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. 6.2 In this

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

condoning the delay and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby authorizes the Commissioners of Income-tax, to admit belated applications in Form No. 9A and Form No.10 in respect of AY 2016-17 where such Form No. 9A and Form No.10 are filed after

VISHNU JANARDHAN SHIROLKAR MAHAJAN WADY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of\nappeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

delay, it was not intentional and deliberate and may be condoned\nand appeal of the assessee may be allowed on merit as the assessee fulfilled all\nthe conditions for availing benefits of section 11/12 of the Act. To support her\nsubmissions, she relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Stride\nMultitrade (P) Ltd Vs ACIT

DEEPAK CLIFFORD MENEZES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. Pawan Singh

delay in filing all the three appeals before this Tribunal is condone. 4. For appreciation of facts, first, we are taken ITA No. 494/M 2014. The brief facts of the case as gathered from the record are that assessee is an individual filed return of income for relevant assessment year on 27th Nov 2003 declaring total income at Rs.9

VISHNU JANARDHAN SHIROLKAR MAHAJAN WADY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-2(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

delay, it was not intentional and deliberate and may be condoned ITA No. 6602-03/Mum/2025 (AY 2021-22 & 2015-16) Vishnu Janardhan Shirolkar Mahajan Wady Trust and appeal of the assessee may be allowed on merit as the assessee fulfilled all the conditions for availing benefits of section 11/12 of the Act. To support her submissions, she relied

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

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(1)(a) of the Act before making adjustment. Copy of such show cause notice issued by ld CIT(A) is placed on record. The assessee made compliance of such notice. Thus, admittedly there was no show cause on the issue of condonation of delay by Ld. CIT(A). Not seeking response of assessee on such issue itself shows

SHRI GANDHIRAJ CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(1)(a) of the Act before making adjustment. Copy of such show cause notice issued by ld CIT(A) is placed on record. The assessee made compliance of such notice. Thus, admittedly there was no show cause on the issue of condonation of delay by Ld. CIT(A). Not seeking response of assessee on such issue itself shows

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(1)(a) of the Act before making adjustment. Copy of such show cause notice issued by ld CIT(A) is placed on record. The assessee made compliance of such notice. Thus, admittedly there was no show cause on the issue of condonation of delay by Ld. CIT(A). Not seeking response of assessee on such issue itself shows

ITO WD 2(5), KALYAN vs. HASMUKHARAI & CO., AMBERNATH

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, merits of the addition is concerned, before adverting further, we deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts / Hon'ble Apex Court, so that we can reach to a fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held

ITO WD 2(5), KALYAN vs. HASMUKHARAI & CO., AMBERNATH

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, merits of the addition is concerned, before adverting further, we deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts / Hon'ble Apex Court, so that we can reach to a fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held