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

M/S N. G. GROUP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(2)(, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

condonation of delay. The petition is as under: - N.G. Group; A.Y. 09–10 “The Appellant-firm is engaged in the business of building and construction activities. For AY 2009-10, the Appellant filed return of income on 30/09/2009 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was reopened by Issuance of notice dated 08/02/2016

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

KING PRAWNS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal in limine, without admitting the same. 5. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee did not file appeal against the reassessment

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

reassessed, that in such cases department would not take a stand that no interest over and above the amount originally levied was to be paid u/s. 234 of the Act, that the AO took cognigance of one of the notes and chose to ignore the particular note,that there was no delay attributable to the assessee in any proceedings

ORANATE MULTI MODAL CARRIERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional/preliminary ground of appeal raised

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhorient Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ito-2(2)(4), Ltd., Orient House, 4Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi Merzban Path, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaaco0797R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Heena Sheth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

reassessment. The assessee was asked to file the details of bad-debt and to furnish the explanation about its allowability. The assessee filed its detailed reply dated 27.11.2013. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer holding that the said amount is in respect of M/s Sanjivak Cargo Trading Co. as an advance in the Audit Report, this

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

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

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