JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), 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: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 Jan Seva Mandal 143(1) of the Act. 143(1) of the Act. 7.1 Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and guidelines regarding the condonation of delay

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowed the appeal of the assessee rejecting the application for condonation of the delay. The assessee rejecting the application for condonation

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

disallowed the appeal of the assessee rejecting the application for condonation of the delay. The assessee rejecting the application for condonation

FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT LTD,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1) (1), AAYEKAR BHAVAN 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 Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit 4(1)(1), Ratnam Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 38/39, Sector 19A, Vs. Mumbai-400001. Maharashtra-400703. Pan No. Aaacf 0661 K Appellant Respondent

disallowing an amount of Rs.8,31,107/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd First Global 2 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned), however here interestingly appellant have made the application by counting the period of delay by taking date of receipt of assessment order u/s 144 of the Act dated 26/12/2011 as on 16/10/2012, to calculate delay till 14/11/2013 i.e. the date when appeal has been filed and for this period of apparently delay of 364 days the appellant have given

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned), however here interestingly appellant have made the application by counting the period of delay by taking date of receipt of assessment order u/s 144 of the Act dated 26/12/2011 as on 16/10/2012, to calculate delay till 14/11/2013 i.e. the date when appeal has been filed and for this period of apparently delay of 364 days the appellant have given

DILIP PREMNARAYAN KABRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledilip Premnarayan Kabra V. Dcit – Circle 17(1) 117, Kautilya Bhavan 4Th Floor, Arihant Mansion G Block, Bkc Avenue 3 K.N. Road, Masjid Bunder Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400009 Pan: Ahcpk9734A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mr. Aditya Maheswari Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

condonation of delay in filing appeal was not considered by Honourable CIT(A). 2. On the facts & circumstance of the case the learned assessing officer erred in allowing the business expenses of Rs. 40,26,292/- only out of total expenses incurred for business purpose Rs.1,07,98,605/-. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned