BHAVIK SHASHIKANT THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 27(1), VASHI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbhavik Shashikant Thakkar Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income G 601 Kukreja Palace Tax, Ward 27(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Opportunity Pok, Maharashtra-400075 Complex, Vashi-400703 Pan: Acypt3095J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv Respondent By : Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13, Date Of Order 28.11.2022. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Acit-27(1), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Date Of Order 24.03.2015 Of The Act.

section 143(3) date of order 24.03.2015 of the Act. 2 Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar 2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with the 939 days delay. The assessee filed the condonation petition with an affidavit duly sworn by assessee himself on dated 10/10/2025. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as below:- 6. I state that, during

SHRI. BISHMIT SINGH CHAWLA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bishmit Singh Chawla Ito Ward 41(4)(1) Coregaon Wine Shop No. Ii Room No. 603 Hanuman Tekdi, Opp. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Western Express Highway Bandra Kurla Goregaon East Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Afapc7509P Appellant Respondent

80C and 80D of chapter VIA of the Act of the Act respectively 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld NFAC/CIT(A) erred in initiating the reassessment proceeding under section 147 2 Bishmit Singh Chawla 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld NFAC/CIT(A) failed

RAKHI ANANT SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay in filing the appeal, hence hereby condoned. Both the appeals are ordered to be registered and taken up for disposal on merits. 5. The assessee by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders even dated 25.11.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment years

RAKHI ANANT SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay in filing the appeal, hence hereby condoned. Both the appeals are ordered to be registered and taken up for disposal on merits. 5. The assessee by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders even dated 25.11.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment years

KAMALA PITARAM CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Delay condoned. Kamala Pitaram Choudhary 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.(i)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing appeal for non-compliances. The Ld CIT(A) relied on following decisions (1) CIT vs BN Bhattacharjee & Others 10 CTR 354(SC) 92) Estate

SATISH RAJAJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

80C and Rs. 6,755/- u/s. 80D under chapter VI-A.” 3. The present appeal is delayed by 105 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee submitted that the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) on 02.05.2024, however, the assessee did not receive

SHRI BALKRISHNA VITHAL SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(1) (2) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1753/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-28(1)(2), Shri Balkrishna Vithal Mumbai-400 703 Shinde A-9, Ganga Tower Co-Op बनाम/ Housing Society, Plot Vs. No. 40A, Sector-16, Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400 703, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaips4294A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. N. Rao, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 03.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 24.02.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-26

80C. 4. Assessee aggrieved by the order of AO filed a revision application u/s 264 before PCIT -28, Mumbai which was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2015. Thereafter assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made very detail submissions which 4 I.T.A. No. 1753/Mum/2021 Shri Balkrishna Vithal Shinde are incorporated in the impugned appellate order. However

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

SHRI SANDEEP S SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

Delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has challenged the following additions:- “Addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act is not justified as the Appellant has opted presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Act. 1. The ld. NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld.A.O. to invoke the provisions of section

RAJESH M JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 10(38).  CIT v/s Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) 6 Rajesh M Jain (HUF) S.10(38)/69: Fact that a small amount invested in "penny" stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is "bogus" if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted.  Farrah Marker v/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai