DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

271(1)(c) of the Act which being premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as infructuous. 12. The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017-18 are reproduced as under

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

271(1)(c) of the Act which being premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as infructuous. 12. The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017-18 are reproduced as under

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

271(1)(c) of the Act which being premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as infructuous. 12. The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017-18 are reproduced as under

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

271(1)(c) of the Act which being premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as infructuous. 12. The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017-18 are reproduced as under

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

271(1)(c) of the Act which being premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as premature at this stage, same are dismissed as infructuous. 12. The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017 The grounds raised in assessment year 2017-18 are reproduced as under

LALIT BHASKAR BHALERAO ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 2(5), KALYAN , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

Section U/s 275 of the Act. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeal U/s 246A of the Act. But the ld. AO had not considered the assessee’s plea& penalty order was passed. Natural justice is denied in this case.In our considered view, thepenalty order is passed without considering the assessee

ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence erred\nin dismissing the appeal on the ground that appeal was filed by a delay of\n3939 days after the limitation period.\n2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating that the assessee made a written request

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

SUSHIL RAJENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(3), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

u/s 270A(9) of\nthe Act.\n8. In assessee's case we notice that the disallowance is made by the AO based\non the acceptance of the assessee to the disallowance and from the perusal of the\nfindings of the AO as extracted in the earlier part of this order, the AO has not\nrecorded any allegation against the disallowance

MR. NARESH TOPANDAS AIDASANI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC,DELHI/ DCIT-27(2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

u/s. 248 is a statutory right granted to the\nappellant/assessee. The statutory right cannot be denied to an assessee\nunless there is inordinate delay or gross negligence on the part of the\nassessee. It is settled law that the rules and procedure is handmade of\njustice and the adjudicating authorities should not deny a statutory right\nof appeal on technical

BINAL VIKASH BHARDWAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have heard Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the record. At the very outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee argued that the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte as no notices of the hearing were served upon the assessee either through E-mail

BINAL VIKASH BHARDWAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have heard Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the record. At the very outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee argued that the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte as no notices of the hearing were served upon the assessee either through E-mail

KULSUM MOHAMED FAROOQ MOJAWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) or any other section. Ground No. 4: -We reserve our rights to add, amend & alter anything as stated here in above or may be stated here in after.” 3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee has entered into an agreement for permanent alternate accommodation with builders, viz. Nina Realtors dated 25/01/2018

GENERAL LIFESCIENCE DISTRIBUTORS GMBH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-54, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the enumerated terms, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

271(1)(c) of the Act, respectively. 2 ITA 2422 & 2423/Mum/2023 General Lifescience Distributors Gmbh 2. First we are inclined to decide appeal i.e. ITA No.2423/Mum/2023 as a lead case which pertains to confirmation of assessment order. At the outset, we observe that assessment order dated 27/12/2019 under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act was passed, against