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 139(1) of the Act. The submission of the assessee that due to technical error in uploading the return on the last date because of which the return got uploaded just after midnight with a delay of two minutes but for that the delay of filing is not intentional, has been rejected by the Assessing Officer observing that

MUKESH VASANTKUMAR CHANDAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

delay of 591 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Facts of the Case 13. The assessee is an individual engaged in business through proprietary concern and deriving income from business, rent and interest. The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.03.2015 declaring total income

LONGULF TRADING (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-2009

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Longulf Trading (India) The Dcit 8 (2), Private Limited, Mumbai A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Unit 1B, Time Square, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaacl1075D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/05/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31/10/2012 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) & Further Directed The Ao To Disallow The Net Provision For Loss Of Rs. 51,515/-. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Exporter Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Agriculture Commodities Industrial Chemical & Food Additives, Textiles & Engineering Goods Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring The Total Income Of Rs. 5,34,39,100/-. Since, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143 (2) & 142 (1) Of The Act. In Response Thereof The Finance Manager Of 2 Assessment Year: 2008-09

condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the interest of justice and permitted the Ld. counsel for the assessee to argue the case of the assessee on merits. 8. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee entered into a number of forward contracts

BALUPURI ASHUPURI GOSWAMI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31.1.3,NOW (14.4.1.,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal in time prescribed since appellant was prevented by sufficient causes. The appellant craves a leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 5. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee’s return of income declaring total income

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

delay had to be condoned. 12 Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. (ii) That the normal rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute, A careful analysis of section 33AC shows that the deduction contemplated under section 33AC is related not to the asset possessed at the time

HOTEL DEEPAK ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

delay of 5 days is condoned. 3. Coming to the merit of the case, it is observed that a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the Assessee on 22.01.2018, wherein the statement of Shri Chandrakanth Ramanna Shetty, one of the partners of the firm, was recorded, who has admitted that the diary recovered

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

43C of the Act. For the\nyear under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on\n28/11/2018 declaring a total income of Rs.161,55,42,230. The return of\nincome was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices\nunder section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the\nassessee. The Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

43C of the Act. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on ITAs No.1751 & 1971/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2018-19) 3 28/11/2018 declaring a total income of Rs.161,55,42,230. The return of income was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served

ASLAM HARUN MEMON,THANE vs. ITO, WARD -4(1), THANE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

delay of 108 days was also not condoned. However, in Miscellaneous application dated 19.04.2017, the division bench of this tribunal dated 16.03.2018 referred to the affidavit of the assessee referring to the minor heart attack and found that there was a reasonable cause for the non appearance and have recalled the order. 3. The issue in this case relates