UMMEED FOUNDATION,AL SHAKREEN APT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PMT BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Ummeed Foundation, Cit(E), Pune, Room No. 204, A1 Shakreen Apt, 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. Waf Acomplex Chs, H-104, Office, Pmt Building Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, City Commercial Complex, Shankar Convent High School, Thane, Sheth Road, Swargate, Kausa B.O., Maharashtra-400612. Pune-411037. Pan No. Aaatu 4914 H Appellant Respondent

1)(ac)(iii) of the Act was also rejected vide order dated 11.03.2024. order dated 11.03.2024. 3. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused heard rival submissions of the parties and perused heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as non the relevant material on record

PRADMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

M/S. P.A.ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BEGALURU

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

ODEX INDIA SOLUTIONS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

ARUN WAMAN KOLI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

The appeals are dismissed

condone the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), and proceed to examine/adjudicate the same on merits. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 3. “1

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

delay is condoned to take up the matter for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 13.03.2014, reporting total income at Rs. 6,04,020/-. Information was received by the ld. A.O. from Insight portal that assessee had sold shares in the alleged penny stock scrip i.e. ACI Infocom Ltd. listed

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

53,45,789 / 43,97,56,266 (i.e. 43,98,75,523- 1,19,257)= 58,41,251 (relating to regular operations). 3.5. The proportionate expense for net disallowance u/s 14A in respect of earning of the assessee related to non taxable income comes to Rs. 2,82,51,259/- (Rs. 3,40,92,510-58,41,251). He, accordingly

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

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n\n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

MARKOLINES INFRA PVT LTD.,BELAPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

condoned.\n7.\nThe primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned\ndisallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made vide intimation issued u/s\n143(1) of the Act without giving prior intimation to the assessee about the\naforesaid adjustment and therefore the opportunity of raising objection against\nthe proposed adjustment was not granted to the assessee. Accordingly