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

condone the belated claim under section 80AC. under section 80AC. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the subject adjustment carried

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condonation of delay in filing an\nappeal\n(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law the Id. CIT(A)\nought to have considered that section 249(2) of The Income Tax Act,\n1961, mentions that the appeal may be admitted if there is a 'sufficient\ncause' in delay in filing an appeal and the lockdown

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

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

KESARAM CHATARARAMJI CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(21)(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 Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

69 A of Act. 2. Reasons recorded by A.O. for adding sum of Rs. 2. Reasons recorded by A.O. for adding sum of Rs. 2. Reasons recorded by A.O. for adding sum of Rs. 26,51,401/- as unexplained money income within as unexplained money income within the meaning of u/s 69A of Act, are wrong insufficient and meaning

SHASHWAT FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

condonation of delay on sufficient cause being shown. Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives the Court discretion to be exercised upon the principles which are well understood by the words "Sufficient Cause" which receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or want of bonafide is imputable to the appellant [Shakuntala Jain AIR 69

FANCY REHABILITATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhfancyrehabilitationtrust, Vs. I T O (Exem), Ward 2(3), Cumballa Hill,Mtnl Te Sewri Cross Road, Near Building, Pedderroad, Bdd Chawl No. 9, Drgopalrao D Marg, Sewri (W), Mumbai–400026. Mumbai-400015. Pan/Gir No. Aaatf0598C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Condonation of delay on sufficient cause being shown. Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives the court discretion to be exercised upon the principles which are well understood by the words 'Sufficient Cause', which receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or want of bonafide is imputable to the appellant [Shakuntala Jain AIR 69

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

section 69 of the Act. The assessee has also challenged the validity of the 2 Airoplast Private Limited reopening proceedings and has further assailed the ex parte appellate order. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is barred by a delay of 17 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation

JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

69 of the Act and completed the\nreassessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.\n79,67,612/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty\nproceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act\nand charged interest under the relevant provisions.\n8. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred\nan appeal before

CENTROID CAPITAL PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Centroid Capital Private Limited, Ito-9(2)(2), 8, Ajanta, Veera Desai Road, Room No. 601A, 6Th Floor, Andheri (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4546 R Appellant Respondent

69 of the Act is against the provisions of law and the same may be against the provisions of law and the same may be deleted. 4. The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B

PRATIBHA VILAS PATIL,MUMBAI vs. NAFC, , DELHI

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

Section 69 of the Act on merits. Since, the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not complied with, the CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of material on record. Vide order dated 22/11/2022 the CIT(A) (a) condoned the delay

KISHORSINGH PRATAPSINGHJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

69,990/- made by the Ld. AO in respect of Cash deposits made in ICICI Bank u/s.68 without appreciating that the appellant had not made any credit in the books of accounts in respect of said Cash deposits and therefore the addition u/s.68 was uncalled as laid down by Honourable High Court in case of BHAICHAND GANDHI

PRAJATMA TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Cit-7, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Room No. 620, Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 18Th Floor, A Wing, Marathon Vs. Mumbai-400020. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent) Prajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-, Circle 7(1), 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), M. K. Road, Vs. 135, Continental Building, Dr. Mumbai-400020. Ab. Road, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is not admitted and thus, dismissed being time barred. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai, (Hereinafter referred

PRAJATMA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Cit-7, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Room No. 620, Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 18Th Floor, A Wing, Marathon Vs. Mumbai-400020. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent) Prajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-, Circle 7(1), 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), M. K. Road, Vs. 135, Continental Building, Dr. Mumbai-400020. Ab. Road, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is not admitted and thus, dismissed being time barred. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai, (Hereinafter referred

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, addition on account of salary Rs.6,32,472/-, addition on account of cash deposit under section 68 read with section 115BBE amount to Rs.9 lakhs, claim of loss under the head ‘Income from house property’ amount to Rs.44,344/- and interest income of Rs.25,878/- and Rs.73,984/- as income from business

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, addition on account of salary Rs.6,32,472/-, addition on account of cash deposit under section 68 read with section 115BBE amount to Rs.9 lakhs, claim of loss under the head ‘Income from house property’ amount to Rs.44,344/- and interest income of Rs.25,878/- and Rs.73,984/- as income from business

M/S. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF M/S. MONICA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Shree Renuka Sugars V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – (Successor In Interest Of M/S 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Monica Trading Pvt. Ltd.),2Nd& M.K. Road, Mumbai – 3Rd Floor, Kanakshree Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Jnmc Road, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi – 590 010, Karnataka स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs1728B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

condone the delay in filing instant appeal before us. 6. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Monica Trading Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the predecessor) was a company engaged in the business of infrastructure leasing and trading in shares and securities. The predecessor filed return of income for the relevant on 22.09.2012 declaring a return of loss