NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee on advice of newly appointed chartered accountant has filed the appeal. Though, the learned Departmental Representative, on the basis of the observations made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with the issue of delay condonation in respect of quantum and penalty appeals which are also part of this group, has submitted

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

77 of the paper book-1.\nAs per Form 10AC placed at page 78 to 80 of the paper book-1, the\nprovisional registration was granted o 18.01.2022 from AY 2022-23 to\nAY 2024-25. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the deponent\nMadhusudan Rajagopalan dated 1st April 2025, the provisional\nregistration granted vide Form 10AC

NANDKISHORE STEEL INDUSTRIES P.LTD,NAGPUR vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 Nandkishore Steel Dcit-7(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ Gupta House, 6Th Floor, Plot Vs. No.1, Rabindranath Tagore Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcn8901D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Komal Keswani Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 21/05/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

77,54,868/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Komal Keswani, contended that the quantum addition on the basis of which penalty was imposed was set aside by the Tribunal to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer (ITA No.2972/Mum/2014), order dated 22/02/2018, therefore

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

77 days, for which necessary petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay has 18 Hubtown Limited. been filed explaining the reasons for delay in filing cross objection. The Ld. AR, further submitted that the assesee did not file further appeal against order of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming additions made by the AO towards disallowance of expenditure

ORANATE MULTI MODAL CARRIERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional/preliminary ground of appeal raised

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhorient Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ito-2(2)(4), Ltd., Orient House, 4Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi Merzban Path, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaaco0797R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Heena Sheth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 13. On merit of the case, we have heard the submission of ld. AR of the assessee and ld. DR for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that she has raised additional ground of appeal vide application dated 25th September

CARTRADE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

77-78, we find that the assessee submitted that the Trustees were not aware of amended provisions requiring the timely refiling of Form No. 10A/10AB for conversion of provisional approval into final registration under the revised procedures. Therefore, it was submitted that due to a lack of awareness along with administrative oversight, there was a delay in filing Form

STUDIO & ENTERTAINMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 S.J. Studio & Entertainment Ltd., The Acit, Range 11(1), Ground Floor, Hindustan Oil Mills 438, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Compound, Kherani Road, Saki Road, Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aajcs 0805 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. : Revenue By Dr. Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2023

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In our opinion, due to medical reasons stated in the affidavit by the director of the medical reasons stated in the affidavit by the director of the medical reasons stated in the affidavit by the director of the assessee company, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause assessee company, the assessee was prevented

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

section 253(4) of the Income Tax Act. When a cross objection is filed in an appeal, it has to be treated as an independent appeal and has to be decided irrespective of the fact as to whether the appeal filed by the Department has been dismissed on whatever grounds. There is no doubt about the above proposition. The appellate

SHRI ANIKET ANIL SHIRKE (PROP. IMAGINERY FRIEND PICTURES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77,060 2014-15 26Q-3 Rs. 56,320 2014-15 26Q-4 Rs. 50,690 2013-14 26Q-2 Rs. 42,800 Shri Aniket A. Shirke 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an individual, was the proprietor of a concern identified as ‘Imaginary Friend Pictures’ which was stated to be engaged in the business

SHRI ANIKET ANIL SHIRKE (PROP. IMAGINERY FRIEND PICTURES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77,060 2014-15 26Q-3 Rs. 56,320 2014-15 26Q-4 Rs. 50,690 2013-14 26Q-2 Rs. 42,800 Shri Aniket A. Shirke 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an individual, was the proprietor of a concern identified as ‘Imaginary Friend Pictures’ which was stated to be engaged in the business

SHRI ANIKET ANIL SHIRKE (PROP. IMAGINERY FRIEND PICTURES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77,060 2014-15 26Q-3 Rs. 56,320 2014-15 26Q-4 Rs. 50,690 2013-14 26Q-2 Rs. 42,800 Shri Aniket A. Shirke 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an individual, was the proprietor of a concern identified as ‘Imaginary Friend Pictures’ which was stated to be engaged in the business

SHRI ANIKET ANIL SHIRKE (PROP.IMAGINERY FRIEND PICTURE),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77,060 2014-15 26Q-3 Rs. 56,320 2014-15 26Q-4 Rs. 50,690 2013-14 26Q-2 Rs. 42,800 Shri Aniket A. Shirke 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an individual, was the proprietor of a concern identified as ‘Imaginary Friend Pictures’ which was stated to be engaged in the business

SHRI ANIKET ANIL SHIRKE (PROP. IMAGINERY FRIEND PICTURES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77,060 2014-15 26Q-3 Rs. 56,320 2014-15 26Q-4 Rs. 50,690 2013-14 26Q-2 Rs. 42,800 Shri Aniket A. Shirke 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an individual, was the proprietor of a concern identified as ‘Imaginary Friend Pictures’ which was stated to be engaged in the business

SHRI ANIKET ANIL SHIRKE (PROP.IMAGINERY FRIEND PICTURE),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77,060 2014-15 26Q-3 Rs. 56,320 2014-15 26Q-4 Rs. 50,690 2013-14 26Q-2 Rs. 42,800 Shri Aniket A. Shirke 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an individual, was the proprietor of a concern identified as ‘Imaginary Friend Pictures’ which was stated to be engaged in the business

SMOLLAN INDIA CSR FOUNDATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CPC - ITO (EXEMPTION) 2(3) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Smollan India Csr Foundation Centralised Processing Dakshina, 5Th Floor, Plot No.2, Centre/Income Tax Officer Sector 11, Cbd Belapur, Vs. (Exemption) 2(3) Navi Mumbai-400 614 Mumbai

section 44AB of the Act. 6. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has also directed the ld. CIT(Exemption) to condone the delay in Form 10B after considering the condonation petition filed by the assessee before the ld. A.O. on 05.05.2023 and to grant exemption u/s. 11 of the Act if the delay is condoned. 7. The assessee is in appeal

MR RAHAT MOHAMMED RIYAZUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

delay. Considering the said explanation of the assessee, we condone the same and direct the ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal for its meritorious adjudication. 5. The issue before us raised is on a jurisdiction of the proceedings initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional issues relate to limitation within which the impugned notice u/s.148 ought to have

SHRI JAMANLAL N GULATI HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 20(2), MUMBAI

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

77,770/-.\n\n3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. Ld. CIT(A) who did not admit the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation.\n\n4. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

delay. Both the appeals either cross objection or cross appeal for the respective assessment years have been delayed filed. The reasons given for late filing of appeal does not show sufficient cause on behalf of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The reason provided for the delayed filing does contain in action or negligence on the part