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

condonation request mentioned in Form No. 35, without issuing any\nnotice for defects, without calling for necessary explanation, and without\naffording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the genuine\nand bona fide reasons for delay.\n3. Assessment Completed Ex Parte Without Meaningful Opportunity:\nThe learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment proceedings, it may be clearly seen that the AO nowhere raised any query regarding the genuineness of the transaction relating to the receipt of the aforesaid share premium to the extent of Rs. 32,21,48,679. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the comments of the AO in the Remand Report that the appellant did not furnish

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condonation of delay in filing an\nappeal\n(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law the Id. CIT(A)\nought to have considered that section 249(2) of The Income Tax Act,\n1961, mentions that the appeal may be admitted if there is a 'sufficient\ncause' in delay in filing an appeal and the lockdown

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

condone delay in filing Form10 before Ld.AO. It is noted that, this ground raised by assessee is genuine and necessary to consider the claim of assessee in order to determine the correct taxable income in assessee’s hands for AY 2018-19. Therefore, in the interest of justice and respectfully following the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

condone delay in filing Form10 before Ld.AO. It is noted that, this ground raised by assessee is genuine and necessary to consider the claim of assessee in order to determine the correct taxable income in assessee’s hands for AY 2018-19. Therefore, in the interest of justice and respectfully following the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court

IIT INVESTRUST LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 491)(2), , MUMBAI

Accordingly, we declined to\ninterfere in the order passed by the order passed by the CIT(A) and\nsame is sustained. As a result all the Grounds raised by the Assessee\nare dismissed

reassessment\nfor AY 2012-13 was completed cannot be a bona fide reason\nfor condonation of delay given the fact

KHIMJIBHAI GOVABHAI RAVRIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkhimjibhai Govabhai Ravriya, 3203, Vasant Marvel Grandeur Chsl, Magathane Telephone Exchange, Borivali East, Mumbai – 400066 ............... Appellant Pan: Ahdpr5483J V/S

condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal. We find that, apart from the aforementioned reasons, no other reasons have been stated in the affidavit. The submissions made by the assessee in his affidavit are reproduced as follows for ready reference: - “2. The Assessing Officer had passed an assessment order dated 30/03/2022 for AY 2015-16, aggrieved by which

PUKHRAJ BHOMAJI MUTHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(2)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito -19(2)(5), Pukhraj Bhomaji Mutha, Piramal Chambers, 1605, Siddesh Darshan, Lalbaug, 10Th Khetwadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Aacpm4077H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condonation of delay and we consider it is appropriate to refer to the notarised affidavit of the assessee read as under: 2 Pukhraj Bhomaji Mutha, Mumbai “I Pukhraj Bhomaji Mutha an adult Indian habitant at present having PAN-AACPM4077H, having address at 1605, Siddhesh Darshan, 10" Khetwadi, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400004, and generally residing in native place at Village Jhab, District

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings. Placing reliance upon the observation of the Learned PCIT in order, dated 25/11/2019, passed while disposing off the application filed under Section 264 of the Act, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Learned CIT(A) should have entertained the second appeal after condoning delay

M/S. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF M/S. MONICA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Shree Renuka Sugars V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – (Successor In Interest Of M/S 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Monica Trading Pvt. Ltd.),2Nd& M.K. Road, Mumbai – 3Rd Floor, Kanakshree Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Jnmc Road, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi – 590 010, Karnataka स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs1728B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

reassessment order being uploaded on the portal, which reason would constitute a ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing appeal. 10. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the condonation

M/S. C M BRIGHT BARS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-5, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation of delay. The\ncontents of application are extracted below:-\n\n1] That I am Jugraj Chunilal Sanghvi is directors in the Company CM Bright\nBars Pvt Ltd. and all the business affairs and other matter relating to\ncompany were under my supervision. Therefore I am key person of\ncompany. The other director is my wife who has no knowledge

JAIMIN JEWELLERY EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Jaimin Jewellery Exports Private Acit-19(2) Limited Dcit, Circle-5(2)(1), Marine Lines, 52, Marble Arch, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026

condonation of the delay. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that there were two proceedings going on in the assessee’s case for the impugned year, which was the original assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) for which the assessee is in appeal before us and the other reassessment

PRATIBHA VILAS PATIL,MUMBAI vs. NAFC, , DELHI

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as well as the addition made under Section 69 of the Act on merits. Since, the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not complied with, the CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of material on record. Vide order dated 22/11/2022 the CIT(A) (a) condoned the delay

TRAVELPORT HOLIDAY (INDIA) PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(30)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2411/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt. Ltd. 316, Woodrow Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 Pan : Aabcv1143P

reassessment made u/s. 147 of the Act.” 2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is time barred by 189 days. Explaining the reasons leading to the said delay, the Ld. Counsel has filed condonation

AJIT METAL SYNDICATE,MUMBAI - GULALWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI LALBAUG

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm M/S Ajit Metal Syndicate Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19 (1) (1) 123, Kika Street Gulalwadi Piramal Chambers Mumbai – 4 Lal Baug Parel Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafa1651M Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajnish Yadav , Sr Dr

reassessment order on 16/3/2015 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,162,430/–. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A where in the appeal was filed delayed by 1669 days by the assessee. The assessee submitted that the delay in filing of the present appeal was due to the fact that

JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

reassessment order, the assessee preferred\nan appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed\nthat the appeal was filed with a delay of 492 days. The assessee\nsought condonation

JAYSHREE CHANDRASINGH KABALI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 27 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 dated 23.09.2021 on 16.11.2022. Though there was a delay of 388 days in filing this first appeal, assessee in Form 35, mentioned ‘no delay’ for the same. 3.3. Ld. CIT(A) noted in paragraph 4 that the said first appeal was filed with a delay of 54 days. He also took