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

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

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

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 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

DCIT 4(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

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

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

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

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of t Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the year under he case are that for the year under consideration no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. consideration no regular return of income was filed

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

40A(2)(b) only such excessive and unreasonable expenditure paid to specified person is disallowable. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) correctly confirmed the additions to 20% of alleged disallowance. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons

ITO 30 (1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BLOSSOM DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the both appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito 30(1)(1) Vs. M/S Blossom Room No. 436, 4Th Floor Developers Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Survey No. 273, Village G Block, Bandra(East) Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Mumbai – 400051. Malad (E), Mumbai – 400097. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Blossom Vs. Ito 30(1)(1) Developers Room No. 436, 4Th Survey No. 273, Village Floor Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Malad (E), G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400097. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal. ITA No. 62 & 1152/Mum/2022 M/s Blossom Developers, Mumbai. 11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Ground of Appeal Ground No.1 Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) Rs.2400000/- In the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC erred in confirming the addition

ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. DEVYANG REALTY HOLDINGS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and CO are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ravish Sood (Jm)

40A(2)(a) of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer noticed that the identical claim towards payment of rent made by the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09 was disallowed on the reasoning that the assessee has not used the above said premises for the purpose of its business. The Assessing Officer has further stated that the assessee

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

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

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

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