UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1797 days. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 263\nand holding that the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the\nlearned assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nRevenue.\n2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, amend or substitute all\nor any of the above grounds of appeal.\"\n1\nITA No.4520/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18\nM/s Sai Builders and Developers\n3.\nThe facts

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

condonation of delay of 285 days in filing the CO for A.Y. 1995-96, the assessee has put forth the following reasons for the said delay: - “9. ...... The appellants received the Department‟s appeal (ITA No. 434/Mum/2011) on 11 October 2012. As per section

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

285/- towards delayed contribution of PF/ESIC under section 36(1)(va). Thus, Rs. 97.25.003/- towards Employer's contribution was fully allowed as it was paid before due date of filing the return of income. 6) Further, I was advised by the legal consultant to file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT for relief. The appeal was filed before this

DCIAT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNDARAM MULTIPAP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

285 days in filing the CO for A.Y. 1995-96 and condone the said delay and admit the CO for hearing and adjudication. 12. Accordingly, following the above said order of the Tribunal and also in order to render substantial justice to the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the cross objection. 13. The Learned AR submitted that

SMART CUBE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay of 285 days in filing of appeal under\nsection 249(3), on the alleged ground that the appellant did not show\n'sufficient cause' for failure to file the appeal within the time limit prescribed\nunder section

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

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

section 5 M/s Rallis India Ltd. ITA NO.3680/Mumbai/2016 CO NO.185/Mumbai/2016 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net realizable value are items of raw materials

SYMBYOSYS INTEGRATED SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1165, 4003 To 4005/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) Symbyosys Integrated Solutions Income Tax Officer 4(3)(4) Pvt.Ltd. Flat No. 1217, Room No. 637, Maker Chamber V, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 021 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aagcs4206B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jayesh Dadiya, A.R Respondent By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 .10.2020 O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-9, Mumbai For A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y 2009-10, A.Y 2010-11 & A.Y 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) For The Aforementioned Years. As The Issues Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interlinked & In Fact Interwoven, The Same Are Thus Being Taken Up & Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall Take Up The Facts Involved In The Assessee‟S Appeal For A.Y. 2008-09 As The Lead Case & The Adjudication Of The Same Shall Equally Apply To The Remaining Three Years. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The default was honest and not with malafide intentions and beyond the control of your Petitioners. ITA Nos. 1165, 4003 to 4005/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 2 Symbyosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(4) 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

VIVEK MEHROTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. 2. Ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A): i) As per Form 35 dated 24/1/2017 are related to addition /disallowance u/s 80IC,14A,69A: At any juncture either at the time of filing appeal or even

SHREE HANUMAN SEVA MANDAL,THANE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

285 days. In this regard, an affidavit from the Trustee requesting condonation of the delay was filed wherein it was inter alia contented that the delay was unintentional and resulted from a lack of understanding. The assessee is committed to complying with tax obligations in a timely manner and fully recognize the significance of adhering to tax regulations and fulfilling

BIBHUTI B. DASGUPTA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. PAN: AAAHG1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi (AR Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (DR) Date of hearing : 05.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeal

BIBHUTI B. DASGUPTA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. CIT 19, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. PAN: AAAHG1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi (AR Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (DR) Date of hearing : 05.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeal

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

285/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the assessee-bank" 2 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in overlooking the specific amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2012, to Section

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 3. The assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2016 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee