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

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 and\n2020-21 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nbeing barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the\ndelay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 and\n2020-21 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nbeing barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the\ndelay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 and\n2020-21 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nbeing barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the\ndelay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause

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

97,241/- in computation of total\nincome.\n3. The assessee has preferred the appeal against the said intimation\norder before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of\nthe assessee while passing the impugned order on the ground that there is\nhuge delay i.e. 3789 days in filing the appeal

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

97 / / 55 55 / / 20 20 18-ITA-I] 18 I] dated dated 03.01.2020 03.01.2020 authorized authorized the the Commissioners of Income Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications of condonation tax to admit applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 for A Y 2018 of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

97,00,750 was added to my total income under section 69 of the Act. section 69 of the Act. 9. I hereby submit that all these years I have been battling an 9. I hereby submit that all these years I have been battling an 9. I hereby submit that all these years I have been battling an emotional

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

delay in filing of cross-objection stands condoned and the cross- objection is admitted. 9. Grounds of Cross-Objections 9.1 The ground raised in the cross-objection read as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent prays that deduction of Education Cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax ought to have been allowed

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 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

condonation of delay has to be treated as attributable to the assessee while determining the eligible interest in terms of section 244A(2)of the Act.In other words,if an assessee is responsible for the delay in the finalisation of the proceedings on the basis of which he becomes entitled to the refund, then the period of delay

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

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

97,077/-. It was further observed by the AO that the assessee was maintaining a common pool of funds as well as accounts for all its activities. He, therefore, asked the assessee as to why the provisions of sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D may not be applied and after considering the reply of the assessee made a disallowance

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

97,625/- and reduce the total income of the Appellant accordingly.” 8. In the affidavit filed by the Assessee supporting the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that the Assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay under Section

THE BOMBAY ST. XAVIERS SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

97,625/- and reduce the total income of the Appellant accordingly.” 8. In the affidavit filed by the Assessee supporting the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that the Assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay under Section

MUSIC BROADCAST LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

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

97,956/-. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has not not been bee able to reconcile the receipts as per 26AS with the receipts reflected in P& L Account. Even in the remand report, the appellant has not been able to reconcile all the receipts with the 26AS. Therefore in such circumstances

ANISH METALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon‟Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am

97,63,520/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, proceedings u/s 147 was initiated by issue 4 I.T.A. No. 6274/Mum/2008 & 1093/Mum/10 & ITA No. 5474 & 5475/Mum/2011 M/s Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd. of notice u/s 148 and after serving statutory notices, assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I.T. Act thereby making additions /disallowances. 5. Aggrieved

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal constitution so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality. 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough

JV FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form 97 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed.] 7.5 Further, during the appeal proceeding, the appellant has submitted that

J V FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form 97 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed.] 7.5 Further, during the appeal proceeding, the appellant has submitted that

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act, in respect of date of commencement and completion of the project has no application to projects undertaken under the scheme of Central or State Govt. Thus, in view of the fact that the project on which the benefit of deduction was claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, was approved under DC regulation