PINKAL DILIP BHANSALI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

delay being being being unintentional unintentional unintentional and and and supported supported supported by by by bona bona bona fide fide fide Pinkal Dilip Bhansali circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication

MS. NABEEL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, MIRA ROAD ,THANE vs. PR. CIT THANE -1, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 69C, and directed him to reframe the assessment accordingly.\n\n5. The appeal was filed with a delay of 37 days accompanied by an affidavit explaining that the authorised representative handling the matter was suffering from serious liver and gall-bladder ailments and therefore could not file the appeal within time. On being advised, the assessee engaged new counsel

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and thus the appeal is registered to be heard on merits. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and thus the appeal is registered to be heard on merits. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

SHREE RAJ HOME MAKERS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shree Raj Home Dcit, Makers, बनाम/ Circle-22(3), 416, Arenja Corner, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vs. Sector-17 Vashi Railway Complex, Vashi-400703 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Abjfs1576P

condoning the delay of 84 days which is in violation of principle of nature justice. 2. During hearing, Shri Shriram Bajaj, Ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that prima facie the assessee is having a good case in its favour as addition under section 69C

NIKHIL R. DHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil R Dharia, Acit-19(2), B-7, Utkarsh Tilak Nagar, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ V. P. Road, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Addpd8065A

delay is condoned. 3. The next ground raised by the assessee, challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). The ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Neha Paranjape, did not press this ground, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The only effective ground agitated by the ld. counsel

SHWETA AJAYKUMAR PAHARIA,JAYMALA APARTMENT,MARVE ROAD, MALAD WEST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(3)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

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

69C of the Act. 3. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 8,59,266/-on account of Interest on Loan taken from the unsecured loan of Rs. 96,00,000/- during the impugned assessment year. 4. All the aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other, independent and in the alternative

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT4(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 69C for unexplained expenditure; (iv) addition of lained expenditure; (iv) addition of ₹14,58,70,458/ 14,58,70,458/- being 1% of the transaction value of of the transaction value of ₹14,58,70,45,800/- in share and commodity transactions; and (v) addition of interest income commodity transactions; and (v) addition of interest income commodity transactions

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 ()

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication oned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication oned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Upon perusal of the impugned appellate order, it is seen that Upon perusal of the impugned appellate order, it is seen that Upon perusal of the impugned

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 ()

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication oned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication oned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Upon perusal of the impugned appellate order, it is seen that Upon perusal of the impugned appellate order, it is seen that Upon perusal of the impugned

BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT25(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

delay seems to have been caused. If we see the details now as part of the appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed ledger account, bank statement and few of the invoices. The addition under section 69C has been made only with respect to one property M/s Centurian Sales Corporation and there is absolutely no cogent reason given by the appellant

BHARAT THAKARSHI MAMANIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged premium paid on two insurance policies issued by Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, without granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. It was submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR NAGRAJ JAIN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

section 69C of the Act as mentioned in the respective appeals. On appeal the learned CIT(A) considered the factual matrix found that the sales of the assessee were genuine (para 4.5 of the impugned order), thus the entire amount of purchases cannot be disallowed. The gross profit

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

condonation of delay of 123 days in filing this appeal late by the assessee beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). We admit this appeal in ITA no. 4896/Mum/2015 for AY 2008-09 which was filed late by the assesee by 123 days than the time prescribed u/s 253(3). We order accordingly. Appeal No. ITA no. 2135/Mum/2013-Assessment Year

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

condonation of delay of 123 days in filing this appeal late by the assessee beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). We admit this appeal in ITA no. 4896/Mum/2015 for AY 2008-09 which was filed late by the assesee by 123 days than the time prescribed u/s 253(3). We order accordingly. Appeal No. ITA no. 2135/Mum/2013-Assessment Year

MAYUR SHRIMANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

69C of the Act out of the addition of `1,00,65,104/- (Assessment Year 2009-10). 2. During hearing, none was present for the assessee whereas, Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. Sr. DR. was present for the Revenue. It is noted that on 01/08/2016, the appeals of the assessee were adjourned at the request of the assessee. Today, the assessee

RADHIKA ANANT DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHEMBER, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing present appeals filed by the assessees before for A.Y. 2012-13 before this Tribunal’s stand condoned. 5 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Brief Facts of the case are as under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains

ANANT VIJAY DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing present appeals filed by the assessees before for A.Y. 2012-13 before this Tribunal’s stand condoned. 5 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Brief Facts of the case are as under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains

GIRIRAJ DAULAL DAMANI HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHEMBERS

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing present appeals filed by the assessees before for A.Y. 2012-13 before this Tribunal’s stand condoned. 5 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Brief Facts of the case are as under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains