GAURAV RAJESH DESAI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 56(2)(vii)(h) is valid and correct in view of the factual matrix of the present case. In The light of above discussion I am inclined to concur with the findings of AO in his assessment order with regard to addition of its 50.96.6671- made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). Accordingly hereby sustain the addition

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay

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

56(2)(x) of the Act, to the extent of Rs. 22,50,000/ the Act, to the extent of Rs. 22,50,000/-, as per the reasons stated , as per the reasons stated in the impugned order in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

delay of 101 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. In the present case it is not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee is a co-operative society and it has received interest income from co-operative banks

TUTOR INVESTMENT& FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

delay for 113 days is condoned, and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned CIT (A)-54, Mumbai erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in fair market value and actual

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs 2,56,358/- under section

SMT MOHINI BHARAT KUMAR LUDHANI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE. DELHI, MUMBAI

Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').\n1.1.\nThere was a delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal. It was\nsubmitted that the Appellant is a senior citizen (around 77 years of\nage), who was facing health issues at the relevant time. The delay of\n2 days

MEENA ARJUN NARANG,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 56(2)(x), on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the entire difference 2 Meena Arjun Narang between the agreement value and the stamp duty value in the hands of the Appellant, ignoring the fact that the Appellant is a co-owner of the property

BEETLE VENTURES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Beetle Ventures Private Limited V. Acit – 16(2) Unit No. 155 Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.J. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aafcb9355H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayesh Dadiya Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of ₹.Nil and claimed loss of ₹.1,04,62,533/- and the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

delay of 94 days in filing of CO, is condoned.\n5.\nComing to Cross Objection, the Assessee has raised additional\ngrounds, such as order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is\ninvalid and bad in the eyes of law. Further, the notice under section\n143(2) of the Act has been issued by the invalid Authority and\nhence

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of t Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the year under he case are that for the year under consideration no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. consideration no regular return of income was filed

JAYANTILAL UMASHANKAR CHAVJI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the only issue raised by the assessee is on account of the addition made under section 56 (2

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

condoned.\n3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless