SUDHIR NAMDEV KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

disallowing the exemption under section 10(13A) amounting to Rs. 5,20,427/- towards House Rent Allowance, despite the assessee having furnished sufficient supporting evidence such as rent receipts and declarations submitted to the employer and/or available during the assessment proceedings. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

VAIBHAV TEWARI, LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvaibhav Tewari, Vs. Cit(A), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai- 88 Krishna Niwas, Society 400051. Park Narhi, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan/Gir No: Aecpt2741P (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 passed under Section 147 of the Act and the disallowance made thereunder are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide order dated 18.07.2024 has also erred in upholding the same. ITA No.7737/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 Vaibhav Tewari 3. That the disallowance amounting

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

80D(2)(iii) to Rs.1,04,863/-, without appreciating the facts that there is no evidence furnished by the assessee to prove that the borrowed funds on which interest is paid by it, are directly attributed to earning of taxable income only?” 3. The brief fact of the case shows that the Assessee, a private limited company engaged into

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

80D(2)(iii) to Rs.1,04,863/-, without appreciating the facts that there is no evidence furnished by the assessee to prove that the borrowed funds on which interest is paid by it, are directly attributed to earning of taxable income only?” 3. The brief fact of the case shows that the Assessee, a private limited company engaged into

ASST CIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHASKAR GOPICHAND GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Renu Jauhri, Am

B, Vs. M.K. Road, Nehru Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400099. PAN : AACPG0843K Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Bhadresh Doshi, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal is filed by the revenue against order dated 29/05/2015

SHRI. BISHMIT SINGH CHAWLA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bishmit Singh Chawla Ito Ward 41(4)(1) Coregaon Wine Shop No. Ii Room No. 603 Hanuman Tekdi, Opp. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Western Express Highway Bandra Kurla Goregaon East Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Afapc7509P Appellant Respondent

disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- which were claimed under section 80C and 80D of chapter VIA of the Act of the Act respectively 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld NFAC/CIT(A) erred in initiating the reassessment proceeding under section 147 2 Bishmit Singh Chawla

HITESH NAVINCHANDRA MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

80D of the act. All the details as called for by the assessee in respect of the exemption claimed under chapter 6 were furnished and verified by the Ld.AO and necessary disallowance were made in accordance with law. 3.3. The Ld.AO further noted that, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.9,91,378/- u/s. 24(b) of the act, on account