AJAY PARASMAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

condone the delay with such delay. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.03.2013 declaring total income of ₹.16,90,830/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

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

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Condonation of delay' and subsequently on merits on account of Annual Letting Value of Unsold flats as income from House property

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

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

house assisted by qualified professionals and hence it was duty bound to adhere to the time limits prescribed by the statute. ii. Appellant further submitted that it was under a bonafide belief that ITAT could give a general direction with reference to non--levy of interest U/5 2345 and same would not be restricted to the specific issue of provision

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

House Ballard\nEstate\nMumbai - 400001\nPAN/GIR No. BDJPP6182R\n(Applicant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nNone\nRevenue by\nShr Krishna Kumar (SR. DR.)\nDate of Hearing\n18.02.2026\nDate of Pronouncement\n19.02.2026\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:\nThe present appeal has been filed by the assessee\nchallenging the impugned order 30.10.2025 passed u/s\n250 of the Income

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

condonation of delay that assessee was not having any clarity on the issue whether the annual letting value of unsold flats in case of builders and the construction companies would be taxable under the head „Income from House Property

RAHUL RAMESH EKTARE ,THANE vs. CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay without appreciating that there is a 'sufficient cause' as submitted by the Appellant in terms of sec. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. c. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering that, 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted flexibly to advance substantial justice rather than dismissing them on the technical grounds especially when the delay

KIRTIKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL BHIMANI (PROPERITOR M/S. SHANTI INDUSTRIES) ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house property income, thereby resulting in double taxation of the same income, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled principles of taxation. 2. Condonation of Delay

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

house property without appreciating the\nfact of the case\".\nThe Assessee on the contrary by filing CO No.78/M/2024 has\nchallenged the re-opening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of\nthe Act, as well as the Assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the\nAct, by raising the following grounds of appeal

MODERN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

condoning the delay. The learned Departmental Representative also vehemently submitted that on the merits of the case the learned CIT (A) has not dealt with and therefore, the huge paper book filed by the assessee cannot be considered at this stage. 09. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Property Co. Ltd. v. Under Secretary (ITA-II) Department of Revenue [323 ITR 441] observed as under: - “7. In view of the foregoing, it is absolutely clear that the submissions sought to be raised before us by the learned counsel 26 ITA No. 2147 & 2348/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Lodha Developers Limited {since merged M/s. Palava Dwellers

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Property Co. Ltd. v. Under Secretary (ITA-II) Department of Revenue [323 ITR 441] observed as under: - “7. In view of the foregoing, it is absolutely clear that the submissions sought to be raised before us by the learned counsel 26 ITA No. 2147 & 2348/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Lodha Developers Limited {since merged M/s. Palava Dwellers

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the said delay. He thus, did not admit the appeal and rejected it, treating the appeal as dismissed. 3.1. Even though the appeal was not admitted and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), he proceeded to discuss on the facts of the case and 5 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the said delay. He thus, did not admit the appeal and rejected it, treating the appeal as dismissed. 3.1. Even though the appeal was not admitted and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), he proceeded to discuss on the facts of the case and 5 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the said delay. He thus, did not admit the appeal and rejected it, treating the appeal as dismissed. 3.1. Even though the appeal was not admitted and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), he proceeded to discuss on the facts of the case and 5 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the said delay. He thus, did not admit the appeal and rejected it, treating the appeal as dismissed. 3.1. Even though the appeal was not admitted and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), he proceeded to discuss on the facts of the case and 5 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society