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

SHRI KHANDESHWAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

condoned, and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on its merits. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 13,96,500/- made by the Ld. AO u/s. 69A of the Act. Your appellant

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

69A. It is pleaded that The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condo may be provided and application for condonation of delay rejected by the rejected by the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

69A. It is pleaded that The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condo may be provided and application for condonation of delay rejected by the rejected by the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the six appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

delay was condoned, and the appeals were admitted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "250", "142(1)", "69A", "143(3)", "148", "80-O" ], "issues

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO- CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)— Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

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

69A of Act, are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee

K.P. ENTERPRISE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainkp Enterprises Vs. Ito, Ward 4(1) Shop No. 55, Hs Desai Ashar It Park, 6Th Compound, Shirsad, Floor, Road No. 16Z, Vajreshwari Road, Vasai (E) Wagle Industrial 401208. Estate, Thane (E). Pan/Gir No. Aakfk5524D (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice - that being the life purpose of the existence of institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does

JAY NANDA MATAJI CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 31(2) (1) , 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 Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jay Nanda Mataji Co-Operative Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Credit Society Limited, R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Shop No. 153/5/6, General Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Arunkumar Vaidya Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (East), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400065. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaaj 5397 E Appellant Respondent

section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the deposits made in to the bank out 1961. It was submitted that the deposits made in to the bank out 1961. It was submitted that the deposits made in to the bank out of collections from various members of Co of collections from various members

VIKRAM BABULAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ASSESSMENT UNIT IT DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanvikram Babulal Shah Vs. Ito Assessment Unit It 3Rd Floor, R. No. 73, Shreenathji Department Bldg, Gulalwadi 142, Kika Street, Piramal Chambers Mumbai- Maharashtra-400 004 400 012 Pan: Cdops4473E (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A be deleted. 10.Your Petitioner craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any/ all the above Grounds of Appeal.” 6. It is brought to our notice that there is delay of 102 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant/assessee stating that statistically there

NARSHI GOPALJI MANGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

condonation of delay alongwith evidences stating as under: “I, Narshi Gopalji Mange, the appellant, assessed at C-502, Woodland Heights, Chandivali Farm Road, Near Forbes Company, Chandivali Mumbal 400072 do solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. Assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 in my case was completed under section 143 (3). 2. Addition made by the Assessing officer

RAHUL GANGARAM KANAGANDULA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula 203, Vikas Darshan, Income Tax Officer, Shankar Puppala Road, Ward 20(3)(1) 12Th Lane Nagpada, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alepk1983F

69A is not sustainable on facts or in law. 6. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with approval of the Hon'ble tribunal.” 03. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual carrying on activity of Crane hiring and labour charges. He filed its return of Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula

RAJENDRA KAMALAKANT CHODANKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6629/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL 1. In the above-mentioned case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC had passed an order on 26.08.2024. The statutory due date for filing this appeal before your Honour was 25.10.2024. However, the captioned appeal has been filed by the appellant on 18.12.2024 resulting in a delay of 54 days. 2. It is respectfully

BHAVANA MANOJ SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhavana Manoj Singh, Flat No. 404, Kamal Apartment, Lokhandwala Complex, Opp. Rna Market, Azad Nagar, ............... Appellant Mumbai-400053. Pan : Bchps6429M V/S Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400012. Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.Dr

condoning the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring the bona fide for delay in filing and merits of the case is bad at law. B. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant i. was a housewife and not tech-savvy, and that the email ID on record belonged to her previous Chartered Accountant who passed away