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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

condone the belated claim under section 80AC. under section 80AC. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the subject adjustment carried

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 ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

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

SHASHWAT FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

47 days Order u/s 154 Passed on = 23.08.2022 Due date of filing the appeal = 22.09.2022 Therefore delay in filing the appeal = 331 days The delay is due to the fact that the appellant has seen the order u/s 154 on 14.08.2023. And the appellant has filed an appeal on 31.08.2023. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) has rejected the appeal

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

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

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

M/S N. G. GROUP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(2)(, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

condone the delay in filing of the appeal of 485 days. 010. Coming the facts of the case, assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of developing and building of residential and commercial premises. It filed its return of income on 30th September 2009 declaring nil income. Thereafter, assessment order under Section

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on the merits. 4. In this appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds: – “Ground No.1 Incorrect year of assessment 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['Hon'ble CIT(A)] has erred in upholding the addition

SANGEETA JAGDISH KENY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

section 2(47)(iv) r.w.s. 45(2) of the Income Tax Act were applicable and the capital gain is taxable in the year such stock is sold or transferred.” 3. At the outset, it was noted that the captioned appeal has been filed belatedly after a delay of 1406 days. The assessee has sought condonation

KISHOR JETHALAL MORBIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding 7. before the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual, has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 53,84,950/-. However as per the information available on record, the assessee

RESHMA MOHAMMED ASIM ANSARI,BANDRA EAST vs. ITO-23(3)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Ito-23(3)(1), Room No. 402, Mina Centre Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Building, Ahmed Zakaria Nagar, Mumbai-400012. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ardpa 8448 G Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3) of the Income Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 16.04.2021, r referred to as "the Act") on 16.04.2021, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹43,79,785/- wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of wherein the Assessing Officer