SHRIJAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,SANTACRUZ (EAST) vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, CUMABALLA HILL

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

loss and irreparable injury to the aggrieved party by terminating injury to the aggrieved party by terminating lis at the inception at the inception. 3.2 The object of prescribing the time perio The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal d for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities

DILIP PREMNARAYAN KABRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledilip Premnarayan Kabra V. Dcit – Circle 17(1) 117, Kautilya Bhavan 4Th Floor, Arihant Mansion G Block, Bkc Avenue 3 K.N. Road, Masjid Bunder Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400009 Pan: Ahcpk9734A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mr. Aditya Maheswari Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Loss) i. e. after deducting all expenses from gross receipts. 4. On the facts & circumstance of the case the learned A.O. erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- being salary paid to security guards during the year. 5. On the facts & circumstance of the case the learned A.O erred in not deducting Labour charges

MANECKJI RUSTOMJI PATEL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALURU, 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 Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Maneckji Rustomji Patel Trust, Income Tax Cpc, Bangaluru, 5, 2Nd Floor, Oval View, 150 M. Karve Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Ward Vs. Road, Churchgate 25(2)(1), Mumbai-400020. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East. Pan No. Aadtm 1078 R Appellant Respondent

loss and irreparable injury to the aggrieved party by terminating lis at the irreparable injury to the aggrieved party by terminating irreparable injury to the aggrieved party by terminating inception. We find tha . We find that in the instant case, the assessee preferred to t in the instant case, the assessee preferred to file appeal against intimation order

NAVEEN KISHOR MOHNOT,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of ₹.6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

set-off of any loss under any loss under section 80.” 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers and is running his business under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s Arihant Builders & Developers. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

loss account, except to the extent as provided for in the Explanation to section 115J of the Act. It may also be stated here that the relevant provisions of section 115JB are totally in para materia with the relevant provisions of section 115J of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid reasons also, addition of the impugned share premium

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

set off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); and (iv) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of subsection (1) of the said section, determined in such manner

SHRI KHANDESHWAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

loss and irreparable injury to the aggrieved party by terminating lis at the inception. 3.4 The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and advance cause of the substantial justice 3.5 In the present case, the explanation of the assessee, does not appear to be tainted with

BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(1), 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 Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito-Mum-W(443)(1), 411, Kewal Indl. Estate, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Karve, Road, New Marine Mumbai-400013. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaapz 0864 D Appellant Respondent

loss of ₹72,40,746/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received specific . Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received specific . Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received specific information regarding cash deposits aggregating to ₹ ₹25,56,500/- in information regarding cash deposits aggregating to the assessee’s bank account during the period of demonetisation. bank account during the period of demonetisation. bank account during

SHASHWAT FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

loss." 6. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented

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

set the record straight.” 3.1 Though the Ld. DR opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of the delay; however, no counter affidavit has been filed by the revenue. 4. Under section 249(2) of the Act, limitation period for filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has been provided as of 30 days from the date of receipt

SUBHA HARIHARAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Subha Hariharan Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 4 B 503/504, Ward 35(3)(4), Dosti Elite Tower -B Mumbai Vs. Next To Sion Telephone Exchange Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 (Pan: Acmph5705R) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocate Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071531320(1), Dated 24.12.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 35(3)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 24/12/2024 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity To The Petitioner To Represent Its Case.

loss." 8. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented

LIMRASS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

loss at Rs.\n51,858/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS by issuing\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 02.09.2014 was issued and duly\nserved on the assessee on 23.09.2014. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of\nthe Act were also issued alongwith questionnaire on various dates\nincluding 12.02.2013, 27.07.2015, 18.08.2015, 09.09.2015 and\n12.10.2015. Therefore, show cause

IIT INVESTRUST LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 491)(2), , MUMBAI

Accordingly, we declined to\ninterfere in the order passed by the order passed by the CIT(A) and\nsame is sustained. As a result all the Grounds raised by the Assessee\nare dismissed

condonation of\ndelay filed & the reasons stated in the case. It is noted that\nthe appeal against the impugned order under section 154\ndated 11/08/2010 was due on 10/09/2010 and the present\nappeal is filed on 09/09/2021 with the delay of more than\n11 years. The reason cited by the appellant is that the\nappellant came to be aware

LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

loss offered for tax is incurred on the electronic platform where no human intervention is tax is incurred on the electronic platform where no human intervention is tax is incurred on the electronic platform where no human intervention is done Thus there is no question of giving a done Thus there is no question of giving any sort of commission

KESARAM CHATARARAMJI CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(21)(1), 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 Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay of 448 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. Having carefully considered the submissions of the assessee Having carefully considered the submissions of the assessee Having carefully considered the submissions

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

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

Loss account in respect of vehicle expenses, insurance, interest on car loan and telephone expenses, the A.O considering the personal usage element has made adhoc disallowance @20% of the claim,which works out to Rs.37,284/-.The fourth disputed issue, the AO found that the assessee has made credit card payments to the extent