LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), 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 Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

section 11 of the Act. 3. No application for condonation of delay in No application for condonation of delay in filing

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

section 80.” 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay in filing of an appeal for reasonable cause. delay in filing of an appeal for reasonable cause. b) Without prejudice to above, the quantum appeal filed by the b) Without prejudice to above, the quantum appeal filed by the b) Without prejudice to above, the quantum appeal filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2013 appellant

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay in filing of an appeal for reasonable cause. delay in filing of an appeal for reasonable cause. b) Without prejudice to above, the quantum appeal filed by the b) Without prejudice to above, the quantum appeal filed by the b) Without prejudice to above, the quantum appeal filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2013 appellant

SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

3) The Ld CIT(A) by dismissing appeal and not admitting appeal has confirmed addition of Rs 5,06,747 made u/s 69 of appeal has confirmed addition of Rs 5,06,747 made u/s 69 of appeal has confirmed addition of Rs 5,06,747 made u/s 69 of the ITAct, 1961. the ITAct

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

condone the delay, if satisfied with the reasonableness of the ca the reasonableness of the cause in late presentation. In the context use in late presentation. In the context of Income-tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires tax Act, 1961, although section

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

condone the delay, if satisfied with the reasonableness of the ca the reasonableness of the cause in late presentation. In the context use in late presentation. In the context of Income-tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires tax Act, 1961, although section

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

3) which should not be condoned . It was submitted that no evidences has been produced to prove the financial difficulties as there is no financial statement/balance sheet on record to prove that the assessee is in financial difficulties and it was prayed that the delay should not be condoned and appeal be dismissed. We have observed that high pitched assessments

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

3) which should not be condoned . It was submitted that no evidences has been produced to prove the financial difficulties as there is no financial statement/balance sheet on record to prove that the assessee is in financial difficulties and it was prayed that the delay should not be condoned and appeal be dismissed. We have observed that high pitched assessments

FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT LTD,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1) (1), AAYEKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit 4(1)(1), Ratnam Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 38/39, Sector 19A, Vs. Mumbai-400001. Maharashtra-400703. Pan No. Aaacf 0661 K Appellant Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act emp the Ld. CIT(A) to condone ndone the delay if he is satisfied

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay and the contents of application for condonation of delay reads as under: a) The Order under Section

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

3. There is delay in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay and the contents of application for condonation of delay reads as under: a) The Order under Section