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

section 139(1) is directory and not mandatory. directory and not mandatory. 2.3 That on the basis of facts and in the circumst 2.3 That on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the ances of the case, the Ld. It. CIT(Appeal) erred in upholding the disallowance case, the Ld. It. CIT(Appeal) erred in upholding

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 [or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of that section], or (c) having

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 [or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of that section], or (c) having

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

3 to section 40(a)(ii), whereby it has been provided that the term 'tax' shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such tax. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JCIT Vs. Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., [2022] 145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) allowed the Revenue

M/S G.L.CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/NATIONAL FACE LESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, Acit/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

3. The only ground of appeal of the present appeal is against the order uls. 143(1) dated 07.07.2020 for A.Y. 2019 the order uls. 143(1) dated 07.07.2020 for A.Y. 2019 the order uls. 143(1) dated 07.07.2020 for A.Y. 2019-20 whereby a disallowance of Rs 12,71,250/ whereby a disallowance

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

139 or in\nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1)\nof section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly\nall material facts necessary for his assessment, for that\n assessment year”\n12. As per First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no action under\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

139 or in\nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1)\nof section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly\nall material facts necessary for his assessment, for that\n assessment year”\n\n12. As per First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no action under\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

139 or in\nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1)\nof section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly\nall material facts necessary for his assessment, for that\n assessment year”\n\n12.\nAs per First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no action under\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

139 or in\nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1)\nof section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly\nall material facts necessary for his assessment, for that\n assessment year”\n12. As per First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no action under\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

139 or in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section nse to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section nse to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

139 or in\nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1)\nof section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly\nall material facts necessary for his assessment, for that\n assessment year”\n\n12. As per First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no action under\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

M.P.RE-CYCLING CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of carried forward of losses, he rejected the assessee’s contention holding that the ld. AO has rightly treated the return of income filed by the assessee on 14/10/2016 as invalid. According to him, since assessee has filed the return of income beyond the time limit u/s. 139(1), the ld. AO was correct in not allowing them

ITO WARD - 1(3), THANE, THANE vs. KALPANA PRADEEP AMBRE, THANE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ward-1(3), Ambre, बनाम/ Room No.10, 6Th Floor, 1801, Pristine Vasant Lawns, Vs. Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Pokhran Road No.2, Wagle Indl. Estate, Majiwada, Thane(W)-400604 Thane(W) (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aafpc0868D

139(1) and disallowed the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act resulted into addition of Rs.56,93,329/- to the returned income. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix was considered and considering the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kishore H. Galaiya and further the decision from

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

3 of the appeal is allowed with above directions. 21. Ground number 4 is with respect to the disallowance under section 14 A of the act the learned authorized representative submitted that the identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2014 – 15 in ITA number 7370/M/2018 wherein the coordinate bench has dealt with this issue

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

139 or in \nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1) \nof section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly \nall material facts necessary for his assessment, for that \n assessment year” \n12. As per First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no action under \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

139 or in \nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1) \nof section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly \nall material facts necessary for his assessment, for that \n assessment year” \n12. As per First Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no action under \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

M/S.LAKESIDE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Lakeside Properties Private Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Limited, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old 312/3 Sharda Chamber No. 131, Vs. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Keshavji Naik Road, Bhat Bazar, Mumbai-400020. Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 009. Pan No. Aabcl 4041 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Siddharth Kothari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 13.09.2017 declaring total income at Act’) on 13.09.2017 declaring total income at ₹ Nil, which was further revised on 03.10.2017 however, the total income further revised on 03.10.2017 however, the total income further revised on 03.10.2017 however, the total income remained same. During

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

3. It is also observed that assessee has failed to deposit the amount in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme (CGAS) and also failed to purchase House Property before the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2012. Based on these observations, AO issued a show-cause that