TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

6 pertain to the scope and authority of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) to effect an authority of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) to effect an authority of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) to effect an adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act by disallowing a claim by disallowing a claim

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, 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 Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

6. In the present case, the High Court as well as the ITAT have observed and held that for claiming the so observed and held that for claiming the so-called exemption relief under called exemption relief under section 10B (8) of the IT Act, furnishing the declaration to the as section 10B (8) of the IT Act, furnishing

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

6,38,220/-. The said return was . The said return was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was duly issued and served

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

6,38,220/-. The said return was . The said return was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was duly issued and served

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

6. The current appeal of the assessee is against the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 1443 of the Act, dated 23- 9 Getinge Medical India Private Limited 07-2024. In an appeal against the order under section 143(3), the additions/dis-allowances made in intimation under section 143(1) cannot be challenged, as there is no automatic

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

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

delay of 372 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds/additional grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. 8. It is admitted position that the Assessee had returned loss for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. It has not been disputed by the Assessee that as per Section 36(1)(viia

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

6 Form No. 10AB, in case of Form No. 10AB, in case of an application under clause (iii an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NISHANT KANODIA, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection by the assessee is dismissed

delay of 13 days\nin filing the present appeal by the Revenue is hereby condoned.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are: The assessee is an individual. A search\nand seizure action was conducted under section 132/133A of the Act on\n10/05/2018, in the case of Matix (Nishant Kanodia) Group. Consequent to the\nsearch, the case of the assessee

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay, if so advised. of delay, if so advised. Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 5.1 In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for assessment year 2023 assessment

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

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

1,53,70,532 under section 43B of the IT Act to the total income with respect to the section 43B of the IT Act to the total income with respect to the section 43B of the IT Act to the total income with respect to the bonus paid by the Appellant on or before due date prescribed for bonus

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

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

1,53,70,532 under section 43B of the IT Act to the total income with respect to the section 43B of the IT Act to the total income with respect to the section 43B of the IT Act to the total income with respect to the bonus paid by the Appellant on or before due date prescribed for bonus

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

6: Without prejudice to Ground 4, the learned PCIT erred in\nlaw in setting aside the intimation passed under section\n143(1) of the Act by giving directions to the teamed AD\nfor making an enquiry with respect to claim made under\nsection 36(1)(viia) of the Act violating the scope of Section\n143(1) of the Act where

VIIKING MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) CENTRAL CIR4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blev. Acit – Central Circle-4(4) Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd., 604-065, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Air India Building Hiranandani Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacj9884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkant Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Ms. Richa Gulati Department Represented By :

6. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal filed in Form no 36 :– “The following grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to one another – 1. The Assistant Commissioner

SHA HURGOWAN ANANDJI DESAI CHARITIES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC , BENGULURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1) of the Act resulting into a huge tax demand of 143(1) of the Act resulting into a huge tax demand of 143(1) of the Act resulting into a huge tax demand of Rs.74,10140/ Rs.74,10140/- without giving any opportunity of being heard to without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant Trust

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee