DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. KALYANJI VELJI HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Cent. Circle-8(4), M/S Kalyanji Velji Huf Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Plot No. 368, Vishrani Niwas, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Bhandarkar Road, Matunga C.R. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaahk 1097 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. y in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year

SHREE SWAMY SAMARTH PRASSANA OSHIWARA (E) UNITS CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tax Act, 1961. 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee was not required to file the return of income. assessee

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

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) rejected the objections raised against rejected the objections raised against the initiation of reassessment the initiation of reassessment proceedings under

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

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

condoned the delay. 4. Now, coming to issue No. 1&2 in which the assessee took the plea of limitation. It is the argument of the representative of the assessee that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.9.2003, which was served upon the assessee on 24.9.2003 and the proceedings u/s

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

u/s. 148 without appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for t appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for t appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued same in view of Section 151A

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

NILESH J. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5817/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Nilesh J. Mehta, Ito – 23(3)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 24, Block No. 5, Mumbai. V. Krishna Kunj Building, Opp Sharkari Bhandar, Behind Aurora Cinema, Matunga (E), Mumbai – 400 019. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm2056P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassessment order dated 26-02-2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of 1961 Act. The assessee applied for withdrawal of the first appeal before learned CIT(A) which appeal was filed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on the grounds that the same addition of disallowance towards commission expenses of Rs. 9,75,132/- paid

OMKAILASH FINANCE & INVESTMENT P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Om Kailash Finance & Principal Commissioner Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax – 4 (Pr. 101/A, Ritvi Park, Cit-4), 629, 6Th Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai – 400 054 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No.Aaacoo496P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri R.K. Sahu, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 (For Short “Pr.Cit”), Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 18.02.2020, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W Sec 147 Of The Act Dated 28.12.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Pr.Cit Grossly Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without

condone the delay of 110 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee company. 8. Apropos the validity of the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, dated 18.02.2020, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee that the Pr.CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction and passed

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 u/s

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

condonation request mentioned in Form No. 35, without issuing any notice for defects, without calling for necessary explanation, and without affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the genuine and bona fide reasons for delay. 3. Assessment Completed Ex Parte Without Meaningful Opportunity: The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed ex parte u/s 144 even

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

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

SMT KIRAN ANIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PRIN. COMM OF INCOME TAX -27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. Pcit-27, 3Rd Floor, B-14, Plot No. R. No. 401, 4Th Floor, 33/34, Yogakshema Chs Tower No. 6, Vashi Ltd, Nathpai Nagar, Railway Station Ghatkopar- East, Commercial Complex, Mumbai – 400 077 Vavhi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Anrps9911N Appellant .. Respondent

delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. The fact in brief is that assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was finalized on 16.12.2019. The case was reopened by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2019 on the basis of information received from the DDIT(Investigation), Mumbai that Smt. Kiran Anil Shah proprietor

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 in filing the appeal. The Learned Authorized Representative

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