DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

57,566/- and related capital borrowed was not utilized by the assessee for business purposes of the assessee." However, the case of Wall Street construction is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

CHOMANSINGH M. DEORA ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– Chomansingh M. Deora ITA no.401/Mum./2023 ―[A] Grounds of Appeal: 1. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned PCIT erred in invoking Section

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Section 80AC of the Act.\n\n4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the\nassessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under\nMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No.\nBOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under\nconsideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/-\nwhich

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

delay is, therefore, condoned. We accordingly proceed to cons the appeal on merits. the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condoned the delay in filing Form No.10B. Thus, taking away the very basis on Assessment Year 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 which addition/disallowance was made in the hands of the Assessee. 10. In the above background, the Assessee has sought to withdraw the present appeal. Since no objections have been raised by the Learned Departmental Representative, the present appeal is dismissed

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condoned the delay in filing Form No.10B. Thus, taking away the very basis on Assessment Year 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 which addition/disallowance was made in the hands of the Assessee. 10. In the above background, the Assessee has sought to withdraw the present appeal. Since no objections have been raised by the Learned Departmental Representative, the present appeal is dismissed

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal.” B. The Ld.AR submitted that the above grounds are related to the main grounds raised in form 36 and that no new records needs to be looked into for disposing off the issue raised herein. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "253(2)", "24(b)", "68", "10(38)", "131(1)", "69C", "115BBE", "57(iii)", "36(1)(iii)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

MAHESH PYARELAL SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 34(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay the Assessee has mentioned that he was traversing through tough times in personal life on account of disharmony in the family and medical issues faced by his wife. Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Therefore, the Assessee had some difficulty in making representation once the appeal got transfer to the National Faceless Appeal Centre under

MAHESH PYARELAL SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 34(2), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay the Assessee has mentioned that he was traversing through tough times in personal life on account of disharmony in the family and medical issues faced by his wife. Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Therefore, the Assessee had some difficulty in making representation once the appeal got transfer to the National Faceless Appeal Centre under

MAHESH PYARELAL SHARMA,JUHU ANDHERI WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 34(2), MUMBAI

Bench: notices for assessment were received and had commenced treatment for the same. 5. That I was employed out of Mumbai and had to travel to Mumbai for short visit to take her to hospital for treatment and hence was unable to attend to the notices and income details during the assessment proceedings. Further, I was also mentally disturbed, leading to additions being made in the assessment. 6. That I had filed submissions before the Ld CIT(A) on to 10/04/2019. 7. That I had filed all submissions

condonation of delay the Assessee has mentioned that he was traversing through tough times in personal life on account of disharmony in the family and medical issues faced by his wife. Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Therefore, the Assessee had some difficulty in making representation once the appeal got transfer to the National Faceless Appeal Centre under