AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

41, Mumbai u/s.250 Of the Act wherein the 1st addition of Rs 1,90,000 was deleted whereas the 2nd addition was confirmed, vide order CIT(A)-41/IT/152/16-17 dated 23.05.2018, distinguishing the order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, relied upon by me, in the case of Kishore B Bangia vide ITA 2349/M/2011 vide dated 31.01.2012. (iii) That both

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

41 taxmann.com88, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court hove held that where delay in filing of appeal was due to negligence of assessee, application for condonation of delay was to be rejected. Also, in the case of Venkatesh Paper ST Boards vs, DCIT [98 ITD 200], the Hon’ble Chennai FIAT have held that for condonation of delay

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2018 and submitted as under: - 2) “That I am working as a Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private Limited. Whereas, Mr. Nilesh Mehta is my senior and he is designated as a Senior Accountant. 3) That in case of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2018 and submitted as under: - 2) “That I am working as a Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private Limited. Whereas, Mr. Nilesh Mehta is my senior and he is designated as a Senior Accountant. 3) That in case of M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Private

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

41(3)(1), Mumbai 402, God Gift B Wing, Adarsh Layout off Malad West Mumbai - 400064 [PAN: AABPG7900J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nimesh Thar, A/R Revenue by Shri Limbasiya Kavan Nareshkumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: The present appeal arises out of the order dated 26/12/2023 passed

PALM COURT M PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(3) , 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 stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

41(3)(3), Vs. Ground floor, Palm Court Co- Kautilya Bhavan, BKC operative HSG, Link Road, Malad Mumbai-400051. (West) Mumbai-400064. PAN NO. AAAAP 8738 K Appellant Respondent : Mr. K. Gopal Assessee by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Revenue by : 31/07/2025 Date of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee

PALM COURT M PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(3), 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 stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

41(3)(3), Vs. Ground floor, Palm Court Co- Kautilya Bhavan, BKC operative HSG, Link Road, Malad Mumbai-400051. (West) Mumbai-400064. PAN NO. AAAAP 8738 K Appellant Respondent : Mr. K. Gopal Assessee by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Revenue by : 31/07/2025 Date of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee

MANECKJI RUSTOMJI PATEL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALURU, 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 Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Maneckji Rustomji Patel Trust, Income Tax Cpc, Bangaluru, 5, 2Nd Floor, Oval View, 150 M. Karve Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Ward Vs. Road, Churchgate 25(2)(1), Mumbai-400020. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East. Pan No. Aadtm 1078 R Appellant Respondent

41,730/- was determined treating the total income of the was determined treating the total income of the was determined treating the total income of the Trust as taxable in the hands of the Trust. The assessee filed Trust as taxable in the hands of the Trust. The assessee filed Trust as taxable in the hands of the Trust

CHETANA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , 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 () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Chetana, Cit (Exemptions), Survey No. 341, Chetana College, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Government Colony, Bandra East, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400051. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatc 3012 A Appellant Respondent

41 (Delhi)/[2013] 213 Taxman 65 (Delhi)/[2014] Taxman 65 (Delhi)/[2014] 268 CTR 444 (Delhi)[21-12 12-2012], where after considering various decisions had laid after considering various decisions had laid down the principles that down the principles that are to be taken into consideration for condoning such delay. are to be taken into consideration for condoning such

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

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

section 80(5), “where the\ninstitution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior\nto expiry of the period of the provisional approval..” has not been adjudicated.\n13. Further with regard to whether the Tribunal can condone the delay in\nfiling the Form 10AB u/s 80G of the Act, the Ld. Coordinate Bench of\nITAT Surat

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree CHSL, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, BKC, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPP3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh/ Akshay Pawar Revenue by : Mr. R. A. Dhyani,DR Date of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 आदेश

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree CHSL, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, BKC, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPP3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh/ Akshay Pawar Revenue by : Mr. R. A. Dhyani,DR Date of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 आदेश

LIMRASS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\"] dated 30.01.2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the addition\nmade by the AO at Rs.6,58,24,976/- u/s 41(1) of the Act, was confirmed.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in\nthe business

RASHTRA TEJ MANCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

section 80(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) in the interest of justice. In that regard the Coordinate Bench of Surat relied the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

section 22 of the Act by estimating deemed rent on unsold flats/ apartments of assessee's various projects. Thereafter allowing of Rs 12,70,41,780/- was added as 'Income from House Property'. Further, the AO recomputed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) allowable to the assessee after excluding the interest income of Rs 8,37,772/-. 4. Apropos

MIG CRICKET CLUB,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(E)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Mig Cricket Club, Dcit(E)-2, Mig Colony, Mtnl Building, Mig Cricket Club, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Ramkrishna Paramhans Marg, Mumbai-400026. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatm4779J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025

41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has held as under: “4. The question whether it is permissible to the assessee to produce the audit report at the appellate stage, has already been answered by this court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries Ltd. (1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) wherein it is held that the provision