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

50C of the act. Therefore the working of the capital gain by the A.O is bad in law. capital gain by the A.O is bad in law. III. Disallowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/ allowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/ allowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/- 4) That

AMARJIT KAUR RANJIT SINGH ANAND,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay, particularly where no mala fides or deliberate inaction is at fides or deliberate inaction is attributable to the litigant and tributable to the litigant and substantial justice is at stake. In the facts of the present case, the substantial justice is at stake. In the facts of the present case, the substantial justice is at stake

ZOEB ABBASBHAI KUDRATI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 15(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3143/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

delay of one day in filing the appeal. Resultantly, this application for seeking condonation in filing appeal is allowed and appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 5. Ld. AR also drawn our attention to application dated 19.02.18, wherein it has been alleged that since the original 3 I.T.A. No. 3143/Mum/2016 Zoeb Abbasbhai Kudrati appellant i.e. Zoeb Abbasbhai Kudrati

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

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. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

NARSHI GOPALJI MANGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

5. Accordingly we allow the application dated 11/12/2024 seeking condonation of delay. On the merits of the case the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shop on 03.12.2010 for Rs. 1,59,00,000/- against which he paid stamp duty of Rs. 8,25,940/-. The shop was financed through financial institution (Reliance Capital Limited). A financial papers

BUSHRA SUHAIL SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -22(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blebushra Suhail Shaikh Ito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai Flat No. 301, Cadel Queen, A- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Wing, S.V.S. Marg, Cadel Road, Vs Mumbai – 400012. Mahim West, Mumbai-400016. [Pan: Dsjps1674C] (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Institution : 13.05.2025 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 18.08.2025

50C(1) inserted by Finance Act, 2018 allows a 10% safe harbor for variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration, and the transaction is specifically excluded under the proviso to section 56(2)(x). 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹5,65,756/- under section 68, without properly appreciating the explanation, confirmations

SAGGAR PARIMMAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

delay for 5 months in filing appeal before the ITAT is condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that both assessees, as co-owners, jointly purchased a residential flat in Kandivali West, Mumbai. The registration of the said flat was completed on 01.09.2017. The declared value of the property was Rs.2

KETAN KUMAR SAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

delay for 5 months in filing appeal before the ITAT is condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that both assessees, as co-owners, jointly purchased a residential flat in Kandivali West, Mumbai. The registration of the said flat was completed on 01.09.2017. The declared value of the property was Rs.2

SPYKAR LIFESTYLES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

50C(2) by referring the valuation of the property to a valuation officer. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter and to amend above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. In ITA No. 7001/M/2016, the appeal against the confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) the assessee has raised following grounds