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)

condoned the delay observing as under: - 28 ITA No. 2147 & 2348/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Lodha Developers Limited {since merged M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} “2. Brief facts of the care are that as per AO, e-return of income, declaring Nil income, was filed with acknowledgement no. 982454810111009 on 1-10-2009, after claiming deduction u/s 80IC

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)

condoned the delay observing as under: - 28 ITA No. 2147 & 2348/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Lodha Developers Limited {since merged M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} “2. Brief facts of the care are that as per AO, e-return of income, declaring Nil income, was filed with acknowledgement no. 982454810111009 on 1-10-2009, after claiming deduction u/s 80IC

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KAMAL BAPUSURYAVANSHIV,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kamal Bapu Suryavanshi, Ito Ward 27(2)(1), 92/858, Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, Income Tax Office, Room No. Dibi Pavar Chawk, Pant Nagar, Vs. 413, Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar East, Commercial Complex, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Asqps 4288 N Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay under Section 249(3) of the Act. If satisfied, he shall thereafter decide the appeal 249(3) of the Act. If satisfied, he shall thereafter decide the appeal 249(3) of the Act. If satisfied, he shall thereafter decide the appeal on merits, after duly considering the submissions and evidences on merits, after duly considering the submissions

SHWETA AJAYKUMAR PAHARIA,JAYMALA APARTMENT,MARVE ROAD, MALAD WEST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(3)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

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

condone the delay of 692 days in filing the present appeal. 10. During the course of hearing it was contended that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without examining the merits. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) we find that the CIT(A) has not merely dismissed the appeal on the ground

CLEMENTINE FERNANDES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; 2. Accept the appeal for hearing and adjudication on merits; 3. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same

S.S. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIR 19(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while CO filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5482/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. S.S. Construction, The Assessing Officer Cir Shop No. 106, Building No.9, 19(1), 3Rd Floor, Jogani Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, V. V.N. Purav Marg, Lal Buag, Parel, Chunabhatti, Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai-400022. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aasfs8983N

Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act has no applicability . 9. Aggrieved by appellate order dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has come in an appeal before the tribunal . The Revenue has filed Cross Objection which is delayed by 930 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(4) of the 1961 Act. The Ld. Counsel

BINDYA ASHOK DWARA,DUBAI, UAE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2011-12 Mrs. Bindya Ashok Dwara, Commissioner Of Income Flat No.204, Building 9, Tax (Appeals), Foxhill 9, Motor City, Government Of India, Dubai – 124055 Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Pan: Aknpd9713A Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi – 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harman Sodhi, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18 . 12 .2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 O R D E R

sections i.e. 139(1)/139(4) of the Act within the due date as prescribed. Subsequently on the basis of credible evidence, it was found by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the Assessee had purchased immovable property valued at Rs.1,47,90,000/- but not offered the same to taxation and therefore the case of the Assessee was reopened while

MUKESH SHIVDAS SONAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-3, THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

condoning the delay of 50 days as per the request of the Ld. AR. 7. The pre-dominant issue that has to be decided in the present appeal is whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence produced u/s 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, to substantiate the fact that Section