BLUFAB FASHION FABRICS LLP,ANDHERI KURLA ROAD vs. DCIT CC 2(2), PRATISHTHA BHAVAN

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statisti

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

69B of the Act as under valuation of stock. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition

BLUFAB FASHION FABRICS LLP,ANDHERI (EAST) vs. DCIT CC 2(2), PRATISTHA BHAVAN

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statisti

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

69B of the Act as under valuation of stock. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition

RAJKUMAR LAHORI SHAH SAHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3220/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

delay be condoned while filing the appeal before CIT(Appeals) and appeal be considered & allowed on merits. 4) Ground No. 4: Violation of Natural Justice On facts and circumstances, Ld. CITIA) has erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Such additions are bad in law and liable to be deleted as order

PURVISH MUKESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: The Cit (Appeals) Was Delayed By 25 Days Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. Assessment Year: 2018-2019

condonation for delay in filing the appeal with the learner CIT ( Appeals) , however the learned CIT appeals rejected the appeal on this ground without making any detailed inquiry regarding the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The additions have been made by the learned A.O on the presumption that the assessee has entered into penny stock trading without any material

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned it would be against the principle of natural justice which is not the intent of legislation. We also find that the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. DR are good, genuine and reasonable and hence we accept the same by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 5. Since the issues agitated in all these appeals filed by the assessee

MANOJ KUMAR CHANDRAMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. In the larger interest of justice, the slight delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) also

THIRUVENGADATHAN PAKSHI RAJAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

condoning the delay even though the appellant provided\nwith the sufficient cause for delay.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Ld. Assessing\nOfficer has grossly erred in adding the investment as unexplained\nInvestment under section 69B

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. When the present appeal was called for hearing, neither did anyone appear on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking an adjournment filed. From the perusal of the record, we find that in the previous six hearings also no one appeared on behalf

DY CIT CC 7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN GLOBAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

condonation of delay as the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the limitation during the covid period. The ground raised by the assesse in the cross objections are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition/disallowance which are not on the basis

SHRI. PRADIP CHOPRA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT (C) 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Pradip Chopra V. Pr. Cit – (C)-3 19Th Floor, Air India Building 23, Maheshwar Niketan Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aacpc0068J

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld AR submitted that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) – 3, Mumbai issued various show cause notices under section 263 of the Act dated 16.11.2018, 05.03.2019, 12.03.2019 and the last one dated 01.08.2019 by which, based on the request of the assessee, the Pr CIT provided