RAJESH C. SANGHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condoning the delay, we admit the appeal for hearing on merit. 5. Reverting back to the issue in dispute, brief facts are, assessee an individual filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30th September 2008, declaring total income of ` 4,92,045. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

ANIL PREMCHAND MOTIRAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, THANE , THANE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– ―1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Commissioner

ROHAN HEMANT THAKKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(2), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

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

condoned the delay of 1106 days, acknowledging the faceless regime as a new technological phenomenon requiring a lenient approach for unintended lapses. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on its merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "54F

YOGITA BIPIN KHARADE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 54F to the assessee for the reasons that 3 ITA 4096/Mum/2025 Yogita Bipin Kharade (i) The assessee jointly owns one more property other than the new property (ii) The assessee has purchased the new property prior to sale. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has issued five notices from

ANKITA SINGH,NALSAROVAR, ADODARA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(1), BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

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 () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ankita Singh, Ito, Ward 42(2)(1), 9, Bellevue Vierra, Adroda Kautilya Bhawan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. Gaon, Bavla, Nalsarovar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block, Bkc Adroda B.O., Adroda, Bandra Kurla Complex, Ahmedabad-382220. Bandra East, Mumbai-450001. Pan No. Biaps 8725 F Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3.1 Having considered the submissions advanced by Having considered the submissions advanced by Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee counsel for the assessee and the ld Departmental representative and the ld Departmental representative , we find that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity that

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RATILAL PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The I.T.O-2(1)(1), Shri Ratilal Patel, 543, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Poonam Apartment, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 139, Bora Bazar Street, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Adfpa2032C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2018

54F r.w.s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4. Delay of two days in filing the present appeal by the revenue condoned in the interest of justice after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and the Ld. counsel for the assessee. On merits, the Ld. (DR) relying on the assessment order passed by the AO submitted that the assessee

SHRI JAMANLAL N GULATI HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 20(2), MUMBAI

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

section were duly satisfied.\n\n6. The learned Assessing officer has grossly erred in disallowing exemption claimed u/s 54F of the I. T. Act, 1961, in respect of capital gain arising on transfer of immovable properties (Land) by holding that the appellant was owning multiple residential houses on the date of purchase of a \" residential house\" even though appellant never

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

Section 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has submitted an application dated 01-08-2018 praying for condoning delay in filing this appeal with tribunal late by 27 days beyond the time stipulated u/s. 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has explained the delay in filing this appeal late with tribunal mainly due to interpretation

ATMARAM BABURAO JADHAV,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "250", "147", "144", "144B", "69", "115BBE", "56(2)(vii)(b)", "54", "54F" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was liable to be condoned

SHALINI KULSHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 30(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shalini Kulshrestha, Income Tax Officer, D51 & 52, Ward 30(3)(3), Dhiraj Apartment, Poddar C-13, Bkc, Bandra, Vs. Road, Mumbai Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan: Advpk6996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil R. Bhandari, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2018 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 4. The only ground in this appeal is regarding confirming the denial of deduction under section 54. The short facts of the case are as under: The assessee had sold an ancestral property at Kanpur with five other co-owners vide transfer deed dated 07.09.2011 for a total consideration of Rs.9

LALITADEVI GIRIRAJ KISHORE MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

delay in filing the instant appeal has also been occurred and, therefore, it can easily be construed that medical exigencies/cancer disease also caused non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner, as well. And therefore considering the non-appearance of the Assessee as plausible cause, this Court is inclined to condone the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner

JYOTI PRAKASH DESHMUKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), KALYAN

In the result ground no. 5

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountantjyoti Prakash Deshmukh F003, Shiv Shanti Complex, Manjarli, Badlapur West, Maharashtra – 421 301, Pan No.: Agspd2705K. ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Kalyan Mohini Plaza Building, Wayle Nagar, Khadkpada, Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421 301 ..... Respondent

delay condonation application. 3 Jyoti Prakash Deshmukh The appellant has not filed any appeal before high court and or Supreme Court of India. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, vary, delete and/or withdraw any of the above ground of appeal. The Appellant prays that: 1. The Appeal be admitted and allowed fully. 2. The Impugned order

MOHAMMED IZHAR MOHAMMED ISMAIL CHAUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhrimohammed Izhar Mohammed Ismail Chaudhary, Room No.169, Chawl No.01, Duttwadi Chawl, Near Petrol Pump, Mumbra, ............... Appellant Thane - 400612 Pan : Afypt8103L V/S Income Tax Officer – 1(2), Ashar It Park, ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Road No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) Thane - 400604 Assessee By : Mr. Shashank Mehta Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

54F of the Act. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer of adopting the Stamp Duty Value of Rs. 22,26,000/- as full value of Consideration without referring the valuation of plot of land

VILAS SADASHIV NALAWADE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

delay condoned. 4. On merits, the short point of dispute is with respect to exemption of Rs. 8,15,678/- under section 54F

SANJAY S. DUTT,MUMBAI vs. ASST 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred by 185 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJAY DUTT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred by 185 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

MR SANJAY DUTT,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RANGE 11 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred by 185 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

MRS. NIRMALA SUBRAMANIAN,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-26, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Cit (A)-26 Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian R.No.331, 3Rd Floor, 406, Vardhaman Market Tower No.6 Sector 17, Vashi, Vashi Station Complex Vs. Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzps4849K Assessee By : Shri Nm Porwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

condone the impugned delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 06. Coming to the facts of the case, we find that assessee is an old lady (date of birth 16th March 1944) earning a meager salary and rental income. She is also partner in a partnership firm from where she is earning a meager Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian