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

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2008–09. 2. There is a delay of 114 days in filing the present appeal. Assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay supported 2 Shri Rajesh C. Sanghani by an affidavit. It is submitted, assessee sold his old residential premises in June

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

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

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

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

delay of 592 days in filing the instant CO by the Revenue Department is condoned, as an exceptional case under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.\n\n26.3 Coming to the merits of CO, we observe that the Revenue Department has raised following grounds of CO.\n\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

54F of the IT Act, 1961" (ii) "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69B of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 1,89,97,538/- ignoring the fact that the assessee could not explain the difference in the said capital account balance

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

condone the delay of 834 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4 ITA 4096/Mum/2025 Yogita Bipin Kharade 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had manually filed the appeal before the CIT(A) and when the appellate proceedings were transferred to NFAC the notice

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

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

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2.1. The return of the income for the assessment year in question was filed by the assessee on 13.10.2005 which was processed u/s 143(1)(a). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 26.10.2007. The total income declared by 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

1) of the Act was issued and in response, the Chartered Accountant of the assessee filed the details and attended the assessment proceedings. In the assessment order, the AO made expenditure on account of telephone expenses of Rs.7,661/-, Motor car expenses of Rs.28,789/- and addition on account of disallowance claimed u/s 54F at Rs.2,42,29,458/-, thus

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

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

LATE SHRI. KASAM NURMAD KARADIYA,JOGESHWARI, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarlate Shri Kasam Nurmad V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Karadiya बनाम 41(4)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, (Through His Legal Heir Shri Rahemtullah Kasambhai Avenue 3, Near Videsh Karadiya) 804, Anand Co-Op Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Hsg Society, Behram Baug Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Jogeshwari West, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Mumbai–400102, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahpk5855E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

condone the delay. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Late Shri. Kasam Nurmad Karadiya, an individual engaged in the business of dairy farming and agricultural activity had filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 1,87,320/-., Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice

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

1. 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 treating the income arising to firm M/s. Khushal Developers on sale of property owned by the firm, in the hands of appellant who is the partner

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. The assessee had sold a property and he was one of the ten co-owners of this property. On this sale transaction the assessee received Rs. 20 lakhs. It was in this backdrop that the case

SANTOSH RAJU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

condone the delay of 665 days. 5. The issue on which the order has been passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 falls in a narrow compass. The facts are that the assessee had purchased a plot of land vide agreement of sale dated 23.11.2006, along with others for a total consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/- which was registered

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

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard and decided on merits. 4. Shri Stany Saldana appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the only issue he is pressing in this appeal is with respect to denial of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The property sold was jointly owned