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

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 any sort of communication through email

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

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 to consider that

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