SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

CHETANA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Chetana, Cit (Exemptions), Survey No. 341, Chetana College, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Government Colony, Bandra East, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400051. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatc 3012 A Appellant Respondent

65 (Delhi)/[2014] 268 CTR 444 (Delhi)[21-12 12-2012], where after considering various decisions had laid after considering various decisions had laid down the principles that down the principles that are to be taken into consideration for condoning such delay. are to be taken into consideration for condoning such delay. are to be taken into consideration for condoning

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

12, along with Section 13 of the Act including application of fund by\ncharitable organization are to be examined during course of assessment\nproceedings and not at time of granting approval under Section 80G of\nthe Act. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and\nthe appeal be allowed.\n9. On the other hand

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), 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)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

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)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

LIMRASS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\"] dated 30.01.2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the addition\nmade by the AO at Rs.6,58,24,976/- u/s 41(1) of the Act, was confirmed.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in\nthe business

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

condone delay in filing Form10 before Ld.AO. It is noted that, this ground raised by assessee is genuine and necessary to consider the claim of assessee in order to determine the correct taxable income in assessee’s hands for AY 2018-19. Therefore, in the interest of justice and respectfully following the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

condone delay in filing Form10 before Ld.AO. It is noted that, this ground raised by assessee is genuine and necessary to consider the claim of assessee in order to determine the correct taxable income in assessee’s hands for AY 2018-19. Therefore, in the interest of justice and respectfully following the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court

RASHTRA TEJ MANCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

65 (Delhi), wherein it was held in para 18 that the question 'whether there was sufficient cause for the delay is also a question of fact. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Udhaydas Kewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025. 2. I have to state that I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below 3. I have to state that the society has 15 members and further, except one of age 50 years, all the others are above 68 years. The Society

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

65 years (in the Fin Year 2010-\n11), who sued to maintain the books of accounts and also prepare bills for\nmaintenance charges. He has been with us during the period of almost 12-13\nyears. He had provided his email \"datekrupa@gmail.com for receiving official\ncommunication addressed to the society.\n7. The history of communications from Income Tax Department shows

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

KIRTIKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL BHIMANI (PROPERITOR M/S. SHANTI INDUSTRIES) ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Section 143(1) on 25.08.2022 via the e-filing portal, clearly stating in the remarks column that the rental income had already been offered under the head “Income from House Property”. b. The appellant received refund for A.Y.2022-23 on 07.12.2022, and subsequently for A.Y.2023-24 on 06.12.2023, which reasonably led to the presumption that the demand issue stood resolved