PRAGATI FASHIONS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DYCTI (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

ODEX INDIA SOLUTIONS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

PRADMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

M/S. P.A.ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BEGALURU

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal.” B. The Ld.AR submitted that the above grounds are related to the main grounds raised in form 36 and that no new records needs to be looked into for disposing off the issue raised herein. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional

ARUN WAMAN KOLI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

The appeals are dismissed

condone the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), and proceed to examine/adjudicate the same on merits. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal

DSP FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -39(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dsp Finance Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc, 11Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre Nariman Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Point, Nariman Point, Dy. Cit-3(1)(1), Mumbai-400021. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacd 3069 K Appellant Respondent

delay of nine months in filing the appeal under section 250 of the Act against intimation passed under under section 250 of the Act against intimation passed under under section 250 of the Act against intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated section 143(1) of the Income

MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

43B of Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appellant's appeal, without disposing of the appellant's contention of financial hardships, particularly when the appellant had received delayed payments from Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (in short, 'NMMC') in pursuance of contract with NMMC

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condoning the delay and accordingly, we are dismissing the Cross Objection filed by the revenue on the ground of limitation. Thus, Cross Objection filed by the Department is dismissed. 13. Now, we come to the assessee’s appeal, wherein ground no.1, relates to disallowance of deprecation @ 25% by treating 20 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condoning the delay and accordingly, we are dismissing the Cross Objection filed by the revenue on the ground of limitation. Thus, Cross Objection filed by the Department is dismissed. 13. Now, we come to the assessee’s appeal, wherein ground no.1, relates to disallowance of deprecation @ 25% by treating 20 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condoning the delay and accordingly, we are dismissing the Cross Objection filed by the revenue on the ground of limitation. Thus, Cross Objection filed by the Department is dismissed. 13. Now, we come to the assessee’s appeal, wherein ground no.1, relates to disallowance of deprecation @ 25% by treating 20 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condoning the delay and accordingly, we are dismissing the Cross Objection filed by the revenue on the ground of limitation. Thus, Cross Objection filed by the Department is dismissed. 13. Now, we come to the assessee’s appeal, wherein ground no.1, relates to disallowance of deprecation @ 25% by treating 20 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condoning the delay and accordingly, we are dismissing the Cross Objection filed by the revenue on the ground of limitation. Thus, Cross Objection filed by the Department is dismissed. 13. Now, we come to the assessee’s appeal, wherein ground no.1, relates to disallowance of deprecation @ 25% by treating 20 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condoning the delay and accordingly, we are dismissing the Cross Objection filed by the revenue on the ground of limitation. Thus, Cross Objection filed by the Department is dismissed. 13. Now, we come to the assessee’s appeal, wherein ground no.1, relates to disallowance of deprecation @ 25% by treating 20 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD ( FORMELRY TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condoning the delay and accordingly, we are dismissing the Cross Objection filed by the revenue on the ground of limitation. Thus, Cross Objection filed by the Department is dismissed. 13. Now, we come to the assessee’s appeal, wherein ground no.1, relates to disallowance of deprecation @ 25% by treating 20 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group

STANS BUILDTECH LIFE SPACES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

delay in filing the appeal along with petition seeking condonation was not filed before the CIT(A). Further on perusal of merits of the issue, we notice that the disallowance has been made under section 43B

MALGUDI FOODS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

Section 43B of the Act is not retrospective in nature. 3. The appellant, therefore, prays that the disallowance of Rs.27,62,936/is respect of Late payment of PF shall be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. There was a marginal delay in filing the instant appeal

NEWAGE FIRE PROTECTION INDUSTRIES PVT .LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay in filing this appeal. 4. The Appellant craves to add, amend, alter and correct the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : assessee company’s return of income filed for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.2