MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

69C of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] as per\nhis order dated 29.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with\nsection 144B of the Act.\nCondonation of Delay\n2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 169 days in\nfiling the present appeal before the Tribunal, as pointed out by\nthe

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

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

Section 69C for unexplained expenditure on bogus purchases. The assessee had shown sales to three parties and claimed these were genuine business transactions, supported by records. The AO had treated these as bogus purchases and made additions. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned

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

delay\nin filing the present appeal before us. In this regard Ld.DR\nexplained the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within\nthe time.\n3.\nConsidering the entire factual position as explained\nbefore us and also keeping in view, the principles laid\ndown by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land\nAcquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji

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

VIMALA JAYANTILAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

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

delay and decide the appeal on its merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 143(3)", "Section 32", "Section 68", "Section 69C", "Section 249(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the death of the assessee's CA constitutes sufficient cause for condoning

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "253(2)", "24(b)", "68", "10(38)", "131(1)", "69C", "115BBE", "57(iii)", "36(1)(iii)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

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

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

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 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

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

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