SARNATH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

83 Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeeboy (D)\nThrough His LR substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the\ntechnical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of\ndelay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court\nowes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DESAI ROAD vs. CIT (APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes in above terms

83 Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)\nThrough His LR substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the\ntechnical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of\ndelay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court\nowes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

83,645 made under Section 69A of the Income tax Act. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the cash amounts aggregating to INR 23,00,000 deposited in the bank account during demonetisation period were out of gifts received in cash from the family members. 2. The Appellant prays to set aside the order passed

PURNIMA SHETTY,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 26(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumr Chauhan

section 144 on 18/12/2019, wherein he made addition of Rs.32,83,390/- in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 24/02/2024 alongwith request for condoning the delay

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

83,905/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). Further, in due consideration of the facts of the case, the AO added a sum of Rs. 18,14,88,257/- under the head "income from House Property" as per provision of section 22 of the Act by estimating deemed rent on unsold flats/ apartments of assessee's various projects. Thereafter allowing

ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

83,065/- which culminated finally into an assessment order dated 26-12-2003 passed by the u/s 143(3). The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income , which finally culminated into an penalty order dated 17-03-2006 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

83 taxmann.com 293 wherein the delay of 1631 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned. Though the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned the delay on the ground that assessee did not have the best legal assistance available to it, a ground which is not canvassed before us, so however, we are pointing out the rationale laid

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

83 taxmann.com 293 wherein the delay of 1631 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned. Though the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned the delay on the ground that assessee did not have the best legal assistance available to it, a ground which is not canvassed before us, so however, we are pointing out the rationale laid

XPRIZE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

delay for filing form 10. 4. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of your appellant of pending application of condonation for late filing of form 10 lying with superior authority for his disposal.” All the grounds pertain to the addition of INR 67,83,011/- made by Assessing Officer on account of failure of the Appellant to file

PRAJATMA TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -7, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Cit-7, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Room No. 620, Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 18Th Floor, A Wing, Marathon Vs. Mumbai-400020. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent) Prajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-, Circle 7(1), 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), M. K. Road, Vs. 135, Continental Building, Dr. Mumbai-400020. Ab. Road, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 263 of the Income tax Act 1961 on the ground that the order U/sec 143(3) dated 11/12/2008 passed by the Dy.C.I.T. Cir.7(1) ,Mumbai (for brevity' A.O.'), is "erroneous and prejudicial" to the interest of revenue" as the appellant had not carried out any business during the year and therefore erred in allowing business expenses and losses against

PRAJATMA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Cit-7, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Room No. 620, Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 18Th Floor, A Wing, Marathon Vs. Mumbai-400020. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent) Prajatma Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-, Circle 7(1), 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Now Merged With Sprit Textiles Pvt. Ltd. W.E.F.01.10.2012), M. K. Road, Vs. 135, Continental Building, Dr. Mumbai-400020. Ab. Road, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aaacp8386K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 263 of the Income tax Act 1961 on the ground that the order U/sec 143(3) dated 11/12/2008 passed by the Dy.C.I.T. Cir.7(1) ,Mumbai (for brevity' A.O.'), is "erroneous and prejudicial" to the interest of revenue" as the appellant had not carried out any business during the year and therefore erred in allowing business expenses and losses against

SANGEETA JAGDISH KENY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

83 taxmann.com 293 (Madras) wherein a delay of 1631 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned on the ground that the assessee did not have the best legal assistance available to it on account of paucity of funds. Apart therefrom, the learned representative has relied on the following judgments in support of appellant’s prayer for condonation

MULUND SAMATA CO-OP HSG SOC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

83,981/- which according to the authorities below are not cooperative society. 6. In this respect, we note that ld. CIT(A) after reproducing the written submission of the assessee, dismissed it as not admissible on account of being barred by limitation. Assessee had furnished application for condoning the delay but not accepted by the ld. CIT(A) which