FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(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 Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

delay of 278 days was not due to any malafide reasons and the same should have as not due to any malafide reasons and the same should have as not due to any malafide reasons and the same should have been condoned. Hence, the action of the NFAC in passing the said order is been condoned. Hence, the action

VINAYA PRASANNA KULKARNI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), 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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

investments in Fixed Deposits. B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate failed to appreciate that: 1. The Assessee has made

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

condonation request mentioned in Form No. 35, without issuing any\nnotice for defects, without calling for necessary explanation, and without\naffording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the genuine\nand bona fide reasons for delay.\n3. Assessment Completed Ex Parte Without Meaningful Opportunity:\nThe learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed ex\nparte u/s 144 even

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

investment banker to explore better investor other than SKR BPO Services. It is not understood how Intelenet would simply issue shares to SKR BPO Services without making any other enquiries regarding other investors for allotment of such shares at better valuations. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is humbly brought to your notice that the shares issued

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

investment:\nOn the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (ADDL/JCIT) (A)-5, National Faceless\nAppeal Centre, Kolkata (\"CIT (A)\") erred in confirming the action of the\nAssessing Officer ward 33(1)(5) Mumbai (\"AO\") of making addition of Rs.\n8,01,000/- for not submitting purchase bills of fixed asset added

RINA S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 23, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Garg

investment; unexplained receipts and interest income. In the quantum appeals, additions are reduced by the CIT (A) partly and the quantum appeals are pending before the Tribunal for final adjudication. On the penalties levied by the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) with the delay of 1517 days (around 4 years). Before the CIT (A), assessee submitted

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions

MS. MITA BIMOL KRISTO MITTRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), 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: 2012-13 Ms. Mita Bimol Kristo Mittra, The Ito Ward 23(2)(3), 501, 84, Dheeraj Arcade, Pali Room No. 110, 1St Floor, Matru Vs. Naka, Bandra West, Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Ahapm 5920 C Appellant Respondent

investment. But in view of no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer But in view of no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer But in view of no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessme completed the assessment invoking section 144 of the Act based on nt invoking section 144 of the Act based

ORICON ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

unexplained money of the two vouchers dated 14/06/2006 and 08/06/2006 representing the cash transaction and further adding Rs.15 lakh as unaccounted sales on the basis of loose papers recovered during the course of search. 2. During hearing, none was present for the assessee, whereas, Shri Subhacham Ram, ld. CIT-DR, was present for the Revenue. It is seen that this

BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

unexplained investment, without appreciating that the said amount repr that the said amount represents cumulative payments made over esents cumulative payments made over multiple Assessment Years pursuant to a duly executed Agreement multiple Assessment Years pursuant to a duly executed Agreement multiple Assessment Years pursuant to a duly executed Agreement to Sale dated 21.02.2018 for the 2 purchase

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

unexplained credit u/s 68 ,vide assessment order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A. 11.2 The assessee challenged the additions by filing first appeal with learned CIT(A) which was delayed by 92 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal