NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

451. 2. Subsequently, on 8th Feb., 2012, the Hon'ble Apex Court passed order in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 whereby the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpatru Colours & Chemicals has been reversed. 3. In Feb., 2012, the assessee was advised by his consultants that

KHIMJIBHAI GOVABHAI RAVRIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkhimjibhai Govabhai Ravriya, 3203, Vasant Marvel Grandeur Chsl, Magathane Telephone Exchange, Borivali East, Mumbai – 400066 ............... Appellant Pan: Ahdpr5483J V/S

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

INDERJIT SINGH MANCHANDA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

condoned on the spacious ground of lapse on the part of the consultant. 10. We have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 11. It can be seen that the assessee had failed to file RoI for assessment year 2011-12. 12. Coming to the delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal, the only ground made

ANANDKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2003-04

Section 80HHC of the Act has been decided against the assessee by the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpataru Colours [2010] 192 taxman 435 (Bom). Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 24.01.2011. The assessee did not prefer further appeal against the order

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

section 40A(2) of the Act. 13. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has taken into account any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has not been taken into

SHAILESH R. SOMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3) (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1455/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) Shailelsh R. Somani, B/307, Indraprastha Ii, Jitendra Road, Malad (E), Mumbai 400 097 Pan: Anwps-2126-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer Wd 19(3)(3), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Advocate With C.A H.K Chheda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Pariasamy सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 7. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened for the reason that the assessee has made bogus

M/S.BLAST CARBOBLOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

section 139(1) be treated as return in response to the said notice. In the re-assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has shown bogus purchases from following parties for the amounts shown against each: 1) Bright Corporation Rs. 8,840 2) Kameshwar Trading Pvt Ltd Rs. 21,53,948 3) Mehta Enterprises / Sweta

MAYUR SHRIMANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the appeals are concerned, we have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR NAGRAJ JAIN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, there cannot

UNIVERSAL MEDICARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

condonation of delay was communicated to the parties while hearing the submissions of the parties. 18. Now adverting to the merits of the appeal. Ground No. 1 to 4 relates to the addition on account of amount kept in Escrow Account. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing

MUDALIAR AND SONS HOTELS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mudaliar & Sons Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle 1(2)(2), 1, Shreyas Madam Cama Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccm 6781 D Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. admit the same for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its , facts of the case are that the assessee filed its , facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under cons

JT. CIT -(OSD),CC- 6(3), MUMBAI vs. KROSSLINK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhjcit (Osd), Central Circle-6(3) M/S Krosslink Infrastructure Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Ltd., 507/511, Vypar Bhavan, Air India Building, Vs. 49, P.D. Mellor Road, Nariman Point, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400009 Pan: Aabck2801R Appellant Respondent

451 (Guj). Therefore, aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) both the parties have filed their respective appeals raising the grounds of appeal as we have recorded above. In addition to filing appeal, the assessee has also filed Cross Objections in the appeal filed by the revenue. 15. Perusal of record reveals that there is delay of 10 days

SHIVRAM BHOLANATH SHUKLA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sivram B. Shukla, The Ito 26(3)(2), (Proprietor Of Sharp Rubber), Room No. 508, 5Th Floor, 1, Lal Mohammed Compound, C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Andheri (East), Vs. B.K.C., Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ammps1931Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J Sheth (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2018

section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1961. This expression has come for consideration before the Hon’ble High Courts as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Courts are unanimous in observing that the expression “sufficient cause” is to be considered with justice oriented approach. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector

DCIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RIZVI LAND DEVELOPMENTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s Rizvi Land Development Pvt. Ltd. filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring the total income of Rs. 9,28,09,526/-. The return was assessed u/s 143 (3) of the Act. 2. Subsequently

VEER SINGH ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Veer Singh Engineering Private Limited Ito, Ward – 15(3)(2), Mumbai D-169, Midc, Ttc Industrial Estate, Vs Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aabcv2750J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

451 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. Before me, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that delay in filing is not intentional but due to the reasons that hearing before ld. CIT(A) was not attended by their tax 3 Veer Singh Engineering Private Limited consultant, due to illness of his father and he forget to pursue

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 5. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following ground: – “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT (A) justified deleting disallowance of Finance Lease Rental Payments, when the same

M/S TEXANLAB LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), 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 () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Texanlab Laboratories Dcit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, Aayakar Vs. W-384, Ttc Industrial Area, Bhavan, New Marine Lines Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400701. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabct 4229 Q Appellant Respondent

451, Aayakar Vs. W-384, TTC Industrial Area, Bhavan, New Marine Lines Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400701. Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AABCT 4229 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ravikant Pathak Revenue by : Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT) : Date of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order

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)

451 and M/s. Bholenath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs AO, 355 ITR 290, in the present case, 1 confirm addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged purchases of Rs.1,02,83,056/- from the impugned parties, i.e., Rs.12,85,382/- The appellant gets balance relief of Rs.89,97,674/- Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed