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

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

4) of 1961 Act, before ITA 5420/Mum/2016 10 31-07-2011 i.e. due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of 1961 Act. The CIT(A) allowed benefit of Section 54F of 1961 Act of the amount which was actually paid towards acquisition of the new residential house property of Rs. 52,47,251/- which was paid

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 2.2. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), it was observed that since, the capital gain amount was deposited by the assessee before the due date of furnishing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of section

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:

section 139(4) i.e. 30.04.2013 for Rs. 1,66,74,200/-. Which we find is much in excess of LTCG of Rs. 1,19,45,236/-. We therefore, in terms of our aforesaid observations set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and vacate the disallowance

RANI JAGDISH SAHDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

4. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.03.2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee has failed to deposit the net sale consideration before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act i.e., 31.07.2013, which is clear

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. UMA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer-3(4) M/S. Uma Developers 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Shop No. 2, Mayur Chs Ltd. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. M.G. Road, Naupada Estate, Thane (W) 400601 Thane (W) - 400602 Pan - Aabfu8250F Appellant Respondent

4 M/s. Uma Developers can the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act be disallowed under section 143(1) in view of the provisions of section 143(1)(a)/143(1) of the Act. It is contended that various judicial pronouncements have interpreted these provisions to mean that section 139

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

section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in comput but not taken into account in computing the total income in the ing the total income in the return:" 3.4. The indication of disallowance

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

ASST CIT 34(2), MUMBAI vs. MANISH VASAVADA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Manish Vasavada Income Tax-34(2), Room Vs. 1604, Premium Tower, No. 205, 2Nd Floor, C-12, Lokhandwala Complex, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Andheri (W), 400050. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacpv9012F Appellant Respondent

4). 3.1 However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee for the reason that section 54(2) clearly states that the deposit in CGAS must be made not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The AO also

MOUNT MARY NAGARI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

139(4)", "Section 80A(5)", "Section 80AC", "Section 10A", "Section 10AA", "Section 10B", "Section 10BA", "Section 80-IA", "Section 80-IAB", "Section 80-IB", "Section 80-IC", "Section 80-ID", "Section 80-IE", "Section 80P(2)(d)" ], "issues": "Whether the claim for deduction under Section 80P can be disallowed

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

139 taxmann.com 151 and the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment year, directed the learned assessing to delete the disallowances. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case, the decision of the Pune tribunal and other decisions cited before us, we allow ground number

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

4 of the Act brings to tax, that income, which is relatable of the Act brings to tax, that income, which is relatable of the Act brings to tax, that income, which is relatable to the assessment year in issue. The Division Bench, to the assessment year in issue The Division Bench, thus, held that where no exempt income

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

disallowance made of set-off of brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and principle of natural the facts and circumstances of the case and principle of natural the facts and circumstances

FARHAN MAKKI PETTIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farhan Makki Pettiwala Assistant Commissioner B-102, Bianca, Panch Marg Of Income Tax - 24(1) 402, Yari Road, Next To Ashoka Vs. Mumbai Towers, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400061 Pan - Aacpp2204P Appellant Respondent

139(4) of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54F of the Act. We therefore reverse the orders of the authorities below on this issue and consequently allow ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal. 5. Ground No. 2 - Disallowance

R- PAC (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalr-Pac (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward – 11(1)(1) 1001 & 1002, Rupa Room No. 201, 2Nd Solitaire, Bldg, No. 1, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Millennium Business Park, Mk Road, Mumbai – Mahape, Navi Mumbai – 400020. 400710. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr8633E (Applicant) (Respondent)

disallowed U/S 80TB of the Act only on the ground that the return of income was filed beyond the period stipulated U/s 139(1) of the Act. The submission of return within time as specified under sub- section (4

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

disallowed expenses to the tune of Rs. 67,07,527/- claimed by the assessee to have been incurred on objects of the trust as per Income & Expenditure account of the assessee , vide 3 | P a g e Page 4 of 33 assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed by AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Being aggrieved

GILBARCO VEEDER,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CIR 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

disallowed carry forward of speculation loss on the ground that the same was not claimed in the original return but in the revised return. 5 Gilbarco Veeder Root India Private Limited ■ The Tribunal was of the view that once a return was revised under section 139(5) the original return filed under section 139(1) would not survive

KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY - UMC) (J/V),ULHASNAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Disallowance of sub-contract payments made to 7,58,96,520 3,50,25,722 6,24,34,012 - IDCC Protective Addition on account of unexplained - - - 8,00,00,000 cash credit 4. We first take up the appeal of the assessee and Revenue for AY 2013-14. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.3021/Mum/2023 relates