SHREE SPANAN FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-CPC BANGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

condonation of delay\nwas furnished before the lower authorities, hence there was no reason\nfor deletion of disallowances made u/s 143(1) of the Act and the appeal\nof the assessee was dismissed.\n9. It is evident that there was a delay of 3 days in filing the ITR alongwith\naudit report in Form 10B by the assessee

HILLWAY SADHNA CO OP OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay in filing these appeals before us and consider the issue for adjudication on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the bench queried the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A)-41, since the appeal dismissed for the reason that the same is withdrawn by the assessee

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page-4 of the paper book, pages-40 & 42 of the paper book explained that the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly invoked. The ld. counsel also filed an order u/s 7(1) of the R.T.I

ADA ATHAM DARJI PRAGATI MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2020-21 Ada Atham Darji Pragati Deputy Director Of Mandal, Income Tax, Cpc, A2 Anand Nagar, Forjett Bengaluru, Street, Vs. Mumbai 400036 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaata 5671P Assessee By Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Senior (Dr) 18Th July, 2024 Date Of Hearing 08Th October, 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay and, therefore, the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 is rightly denied to the assessee. 09. We have carefully considered the rival contention and have perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The brief facts of the case clearly shows that Form No. 10B in this case is filed on 30.01.2021 it should have been filed

HI-ROCK CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 32 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the case was heard on merit. 10. On merit the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil contractor. The main business activities of the assessee involves taking up contract/sub- 6 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction

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

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The first contention of the ld. AR is with regard to the legal issue that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation. The ld. AR submitted that the AO issued a notice under

ALCOM PRODUCTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Alcon Products, The Cit (A)-1, Shop No. 36, Amrapali Shopping Room No. 29, A Wing, Arcade, Pokharan Road No. 2, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Road No. 16-Z, Thane - 400601 Wagle Industrial Estate, Pan: Aajfa6379H Thane - 400604

condoned the delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, we asked the Ld. counsel to argue the assessee’s case. 8. At the outset, the Ld. counsel submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law as the Ld. CIT (A) had ordered to initiate penalty proceedings

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Silver Sand Co-Op. Acit (Cpc), Bangalore, Housing Society Ltd., Post Bag No.2, Building No.12, Electronic City, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Post Office, Vs. S.V. Road, Bangalore-560100 Piramal Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 062 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Poojary, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R.

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. 5 M/s. Silver Sand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. 11. Undisputedly assessee society has invested its surplus funds with cooperative banks and earned the interest income to the tune of Rs.5,14,181/- and claimed deduction under section

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

292,533 and suomoto disallowed towards personal purpose ₹. 117,609 and claimed ₹.174,942 being incurred for business. Assessing Officer disallowed entire claim of ₹.174,942. 14. Assessee paid donation ₹.40,000 and claimed deduction under section 80G. Assessing Officer has not granted said deduction. 8 C.O. No. 11/MUM/2022 Shri VikramBaijnath Agarwal 15. Assessee made cash sales each below

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

section 263 dated 23.12.2012. 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. The perusal of record reveals that the present appeal is filed after 292 days of prescribed period of limitation. Perusal of the record reveals that the assessee has filed an affidavit of Sh. Bibhuti B. Dasgupta Karta of aassessee firm in support of condonation

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

section 263 dated 23.12.2012. 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. The perusal of record reveals that the present appeal is filed after 292 days of prescribed period of limitation. Perusal of the record reveals that the assessee has filed an affidavit of Sh. Bibhuti B. Dasgupta Karta of aassessee firm in support of condonation

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

VAIBHAVNAGAR CO-OP CREDIT SOC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 27(3)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

delay of 440 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and present appeal is ordered to be registered and heard today by the Bench. 4. The assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred

JAY NANDA MATAJI CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 31(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jay Nanda Mataji Co-Operative Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Credit Society Limited, R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Shop No. 153/5/6, General Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Arunkumar Vaidya Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (East), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400065. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaaj 5397 E Appellant Respondent

condoned the said delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. ted the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the a Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the a Credit Co-operative Society. The Assessing Officer observed from

RANJANA CONSTRUCTION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , 11 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2014-15

condone the delay in the interest of justice in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. The facts in brief are that assessee filed e-return of income on 27.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,60,260/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was made under Section