BBDO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 850/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 850/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 BBDO India Private Limited 7th Floor, Survey No. 368 Hissa #41, Kole Kal Vakola Opp. Grand Hyatt Santacruz (E) S.O. Mumbai Maharashtra - 400033 [PAN: AADCB7917K] Vs DCIT – 6(1)(2), Mumbai अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi, A/R Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. A/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file before the appropriate benches.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was preferred against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. During the hearing, it was noted that the Assessing Officer was based in Chennai, not Mumbai.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai benches to hear the appeal, given the AO's location in Chennai.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi, A/R
Hearing: 17/09/2025Pronounced: 22/09/2025

Assessee by : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi, A/R Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. A/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A) - 6, Delhi [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] dated 12/12/2024 pertaining to AY 2011-12.

2.

At the time of hearing it was pointed out to the ld. Counsel that the AO is based out of Chennai as the designation mentioned in the assessment order is ACIT, Company Circle – 1(2), Chennai – 34, and, therefore, the appeal does not lie before the Mumbai Benches.

3.

The ld. Counsel fairly prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to the assessee to prefer appeal before the appropriate Benches.

4.

In the result, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →