MAHINDRA UGINE STEEL COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4126/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2018AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the impugned order were ex-parte. Taking a lenient view, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by an ex-parte order of the First Appellate Authority disallowing expenses related to ESOPs, compensation, and depreciation on SAP expenses. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to merger proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities without effective representation from the assessee warrant a remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 35DDA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Bapat-AR
For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan-DR
Hearing: 22/01/2018

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →