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. With these observations the Assessing Officer did not take cognizance of the revised return filed and the total income was assessed as per the original return filed for the purpose of computation of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made computation of income determining the total income at ₹.306,02,55,260/-. While arriving

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee on merit. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the disallowance were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on estimate basis and identically for Assessment Year 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the claim of the assessee was accepted though

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee on merit. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the disallowance were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on estimate basis and identically for Assessment Year 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the claim of the assessee was accepted though

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

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

KAMAL H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 18(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 5542/Mum/2023 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarshri Kamal H Shah Vs Cit A Nfac / Ito-18(2)(1) Gopal Niwas, Room No.14, 5Th Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Floor, 133, Princess Street, Mumbai-40 0 012 Mumbai-400 002 Pan : Aahps2365M Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 27/03/2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with a delay of 481 days. The assessee filed an affidavit executed on 24/09/2024 and the delay was duly explained. The Ld.DR has not made any objection against the assessee’s submission for condoning

ADARSH HEGDE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiadarsh Hegde Vs. Dcit,Central Circle-8(1) 5Th Floor Room No.656, 6Th Floor Diamond Square Aaykar Bhawan Cst Road, Kalina M.K.Road Santacruz (East) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aabph5562P Appellant) .. Respondent)

481). 5. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We have carefully considered reasons given for not filing appeal within the due date provided under the Act, and found that the reasons given by the assessee that he could not noticed service of order from the office

M/S M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

delay of 19 days is condoned. 4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- “1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in rejecting the books of accounts and making an addition of Rs. 13,88,21,090/- to the total

AMSAL CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaramsal Chem Pvt. Limited V/S. Principal Commissioner Of 4G, Kakkad House, 4Th Floor, बनाम Income Tax(Pcit),Mumbai-4, Barrack Road, Marine Lines, Room # 629,Ayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca3281G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

condoned and the revision proceedings may please be decided on merits, in the interest and for the ends of natural justice, equity and fair play.” 3.1 The ld.PCIT noted that there was no inquiry made or any query raised about the issue of delayed payments of Rs. 10,29,286/-, Employees’ contribution to the PF/ESIC fund beyond due date

ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M B PATIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , MUMBAI

delay of 19 days is condoned. 4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- “1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in rejecting the books of accounts and making an addition of Rs. 13,88,21,090/- to the total

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1 PALGHAR , MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee had no sufficient cause of explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee is facing hardship in registering the legal heir on the Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing the CO. 22. Coming to the main appeal filed by the revenue, at the time of hearing, Ld.DR brought to our notice relevant facts of the case and submitted his written submissions vide letter dated 07.07.2022, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below:- “1. Addition of Rs. 10,84,198/- on account

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay in furnishing Form No.10, the same has been furnished before the AO during assessment proceedings. This is an undisputed fact. I find that various courts have held that exemption u/s 11(2) cannot be denied merely on the ground that Form 10 has not been submitted within the due date in terms of section

KHAGOL MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. D.I.T. (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2008-09

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The aforesaid decision was announced before the parties, and therefore both the counsels were heard with respect to the merits of the dispute. 6. The Learned Representative for the assessee pointed out that on point of law as also on facts, the impugned order of the Director was untenable inasmuch

DCIT CEN CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ROLTA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeals in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

481 & 482/Mum./2015 C.O. no. 202, 203, 204/Mum./2016 2. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the cross objections by the assessee are delayed by 96 days. Assessee has sought condonation of delay by explaining that non–filing of cross objection in time was due to inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee

GS MAHANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE -1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFOREHON'BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the reason for the AO to deny the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is that the assessee has transferred the amount of Rs. 45,00,000 from provision for interest on standard asset to provision

SODEXO INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. 13(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

section 43B of the Act. 3. The appellant reserves rights to add, alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion.” I.T.A. No. 1639/Mum/2025 2 3. There is delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee furnished an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay justifying the cause for delay. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit