ASIS CORPORATE ADVISORS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 6 (2) (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

ITA 5338/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 July 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee company, ASIS Corporate Advisors Limited, filed an appeal before the ITAT. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted an application for the liquidation process of the assessee-company.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the ongoing liquidation proceedings. However, the Tribunal denied the request for liberty to automatically revive the appeal after liquidation.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be withdrawn due to liquidation proceedings and if liberty can be granted for automatic revival of the appeal post-liquidation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 33,Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

PER: ANIKESH BANERJEE, (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order NFAC, Delhi [for brevity “Ld. CIT(A)”], for Assessment Year 2011-12 order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’), date of order 19.09.2024. the impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-C.C. 6(1), Mumbai (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 07.03.2013. 1

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 33

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 33 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →