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

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

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

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. 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. 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

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

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 246A of the Income of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax – (Appeals) has erred in not adjudicating the Appellant’s appeal on merits.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that

ASHOK PANDURANG GAIKWAD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

condone the delay and admit the appeal for disposal on merit. I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 5. The issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against the invocation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee by directing the AO to add contract payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on which

ASHOK PANDURANG GAIKWAD,AMBERNATH vs. CIT -III, THANE

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

condone the delay and admit the appeal for disposal on merit. I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 5. The issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against the invocation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee by directing the AO to add contract payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on which

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)

40A(2)(b) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 as per Partnership Deed, and statement of account duly Audited. That due to my misunderstanding and misinformation given to my representative J.G. Vora & Co., he in response to the notice from CIT (A) having DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2021- 22/1036138101(1) Α.Υ. 2011-12. - Date of Hearing - 19/10/2021 replied vide his letter

NIKHIL R. DHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil R Dharia, Acit-19(2), B-7, Utkarsh Tilak Nagar, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ V. P. Road, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Addpd8065A

delay is condoned. 3. The next ground raised by the assessee, challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). The ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Neha Paranjape, did not press this ground, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The only effective ground agitated by the ld. counsel

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

condoned, as there is no reasonable cause for the delay. We find that on this issue, the assessee has made the following submissions: In the assesse' s own appeal for A.Y. 1995-96 the CIT (A) has held to determine the annual value of the property @ 27 ITA No. 4322/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) C.O. NO. 287& 288/MUM/2017 M/s. Raymond Limited