NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay he light

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The first contention of the ld. AR is with regard to the legal issue that the notice issued under section 148

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

condonation of delay accompanied by supporting affidavit in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 Assessment Year 2017-2018 (SC). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “I. The assessment order has been set-aside in total, to be made