CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

40A(7), without appreciating the fact that the same has been disallowed in the return of income. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,74,826/-, being payment of Employee's contribution to Employee Welfare Funds made beyond the 'due date' prescribed under the relevant statutes. 4. The Ld. Commissioner

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

40A(7), without appreciating the fact that the same has been disallowed in the return of income. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,74,826/-, being payment of Employee's contribution to Employee Welfare Funds made beyond the 'due date' prescribed under the relevant statutes. 4. The Ld. Commissioner

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

40A(7), without appreciating the fact that the same has been disallowed in the return of income. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,74,826/-, being payment of Employee's contribution to Employee Welfare Funds made beyond the 'due date' prescribed under the relevant statutes. 4. The Ld. Commissioner

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

D.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), ROOM NO. 802, 8TH , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KAPSTONE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

40A(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 towards the payment made to a sister concern company M/s Keystone Realtors. Since the amount has been taken to closing work-in- progress, no separate addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee at this stage; however, closing WIP has to be reduced by the said amount. Further aggrieved, both

KEPSTONE CONSRUCTION P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

40A(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 towards the payment made to a sister concern company M/s Keystone Realtors. Since the amount has been taken to closing work-in- progress, no separate addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee at this stage; however, closing WIP has to be reduced by the said amount. Further aggrieved, both

DY CIT, CC-2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KAPSTONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

40A(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 towards the payment made to a sister concern company M/s Keystone Realtors. Since the amount has been taken to closing work-in- progress, no separate addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee at this stage; however, closing WIP has to be reduced by the said amount. Further aggrieved, both

DY CIT, CC-2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KAPSTONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

40A(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 towards the payment made to a sister concern company M/s Keystone Realtors. Since the amount has been taken to closing work-in- progress, no separate addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee at this stage; however, closing WIP has to be reduced by the said amount. Further aggrieved, both

M/S. KHEDUT OIL TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O, -22(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Khedut Oil Traders Vs. Ito – 22(2)(1) D-403 / Godavari Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Sir P.M Road, Off Tilak Road, Lalbaug. Parel Santacruz (W), Mumbai Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk1294J (Applicant) (Respondent)

3. On the other hand, Ld. DR argued that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and even the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable on merits. 4. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and have perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before me and also the orders passed

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

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

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. 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 1(1), MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

EWOW AV PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ewow Av Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 302, Mahavir Ind. Estate, Income Tax, Off. Mahakali Caves, Circle – 9(2)(2), Andheri East, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aagca8548J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) of the Act.. 3. It is noted that there is a delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which an application along with affidavit for condonation

SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

40A(7) and hence the ground raised by the assessee in this regard was dismissed by the CIT(A) as infructuous. With regard to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance of PF/ESI. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

MITHALAL BHAWARLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD - 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

40A(7) and hence the ground raised by the assessee in this regard was dismissed by the CIT(A) as infructuous. With regard to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance of PF/ESI. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. \nSr. No. | ITA No. | Assessment \nyear | Appeal by | No. of days \ndelay \n---|---|---|---|---\n1. | 2980/Mum/2024

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record.\nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to\n8\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21\ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the\nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication