AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

condone the delay with such delay. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.03.2013 declaring total income of ₹.16,90,830/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

73, or sub-section section (2) of section 73A or sub section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time section (3) of section

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

DCIT CIR 4 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S QUANT SECURITIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 73 and that consequently the assessee would not be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business for the purpose of Sec. 73(1). 10. The view, which we have taken, also accords with the judgments of this Court in CIT v. Hero Textiles & Trading Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 296 of 2001 decided on 29 January

DCIT - 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MILI CONSULTANTS AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesse is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathadcit, Circle-4(3)(2) Vs. Mili Consultants & Room No.649, 6Th Floor Investments Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan 204, Shreepal Complex M.K.Road Suren Road Mumbai-400 020 Near Cine Magi Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm6095Q Appellant) .. Respondent) & Cross Objection No.206/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mili Consultants & Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(3)(2) Room No.649, 6Th Floor Investments Pvt.Ltd. 204, Shreepal Complex Aaykar Bhavan Suren Road M.K.Road Near Cine Magi Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm6095Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

delay in filing cross objection has been condoned and admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of stock broking, trading & investment in 4 Co.No.206/Mum/2019 shares, securities, commodities & currencies like arbitrage etc, filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 27/09/2011, declaring total

MARLOW CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Marlow Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Ito, Ward-20(2)(1), Mumbai Plot No. 62B, Marlow Chs Ltd. Vs Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, Sir Pochkhanawala Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400030. Lalbaug, Parel, [Pan No. Aaaam5247J] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

73,567/-. Application under section 154 filed on 18.11.2015 was also rejected by CPC in its order dated 17.02.2016. Aggrieved by the order of CPC dated 17.02.2016, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 03.02.2025, thus, there was delay of about nine (9) years in filing first appeal. While explaining delay, the assessee in the statement of fact

AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

delay cannot be condoned in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) ITA No. 408/Mum/2016 - Amu Shares & Securities Ltd. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and upheld the order of assessing officer who had erred in not considering

SUBHA HARIHARAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Subha Hariharan Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 4 B 503/504, Ward 35(3)(4), Dosti Elite Tower -B Mumbai Vs. Next To Sion Telephone Exchange Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 (Pan: Acmph5705R) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocate Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071531320(1), Dated 24.12.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 35(3)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 24/12/2024 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity To The Petitioner To Represent Its Case.

section 249(3) should receive liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice. The true guide while deciding a condonation petition should be to see whether the uppellant acted with rea- sonable diligence in prosecution of its appeal Brij Indar Singh vs. Kanshi Ram 1917 (PC) 156). [AIR 4 Subha Hariharan AY 2011-12 We request you to condone

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), THANE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

Section 143(1) of the Act are illegal, unwarranted and contrary to the law and may therefore be kindly struck down/deleted. The Appellant hereby craves the leave to add to, alter or amplify the aforesaid grounds of appeal, which are independent of each other, as and when the need arises at the time of hearing.” 2. None appeared on behalf

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Section 80AC of the Act.\n\n4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the\nassessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under\nMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No.\nBOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under\nconsideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/-\nwhich

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

73,360/- in the hands of the assessee as income being unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

73,360/- in the hands of the assessee as income being unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

73,360/- in the hands of the assessee as income being unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

73,360/- in the hands of the assessee as income being unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

73,360/- in the hands of the assessee as income being unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

73,360/- in the hands of the assessee as income being unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

73,360/- in the hands of the assessee as income being unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b). 30.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal