Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

Santosh Raju Shetty, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

…fide and genuine inadvertent error committed by the appellant in not filing this appeal. 2.3 The Ld. counsel relied on the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), N Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, Baburao Deorao Wankhede vs. Sewa Sahakari Sanstha and Ors. (WP No. 1974 of 1979) (Bombay High Court), Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), Hardillia Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 194 (Bom), the order of the Tribunal in M/s DBS Bank Ltd. vs. DDIT (CO No. 189/Mum/2013 for AY 1995-96), Urudavan Investment and Trading P. Ltd…

Tata Projects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 बिाम/ Tata Projects Limited, Dcit Circle-2(3)(1) 2Nd,3Rd & 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Transocean House, M K Road V. Lake Boulevard Road, Mumbai-400020 Hiranandani Gardens Mhada Colony Powai, Mumbai-400076 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact4119L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. R.R. Vora & Shri. Vipual Soni Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 329/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 27.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-6/It-52/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018

…relied on the following judgment in an application filed with tribunal praying for condonation of delay, as under:- MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ (Mumbai) 53 Balkrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 Lala Mata Din v. A Narayan AIR 1970 (SC) 1953 3.3 The learned DR fairly left the matter to be decided by the Bench in accordance with law. 3.4 After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we are of the considered view that delay of one day in filing this appeal with tribunal late beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the…

Anish Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon‟Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am

…5474 & 5475/Mum/2011 M/s Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd. the case of State of West Bengal vrs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 749), Collector, Land Acquisition Vrs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Bal Krishanan Vrs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, Ram Nath Sao vrs. Gobardhan Sao (AIR 2002 SC 1201), Auto Centre Vrs. State of UP & Ors (2005) 278 ITR 291 (all), Areva T & D India Ltd vrs. JCIT (2006) 287 ITR 555 (Mad), Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vrs. Ito (2013) 29 taxmann.com 389 (Guj) and Gujrat Electricity Board Vrs. DCIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 340(Guj), etc. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied…

Hydro Pneumatic Accessories India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Hydro Pneumatic Ito-10(3)(1), Mumbai. Accessories India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 17, Raja Industrial Estate, P.K. Road, Nahur Village, Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080. Pan No. Aaach1351A Respondent Appellant Assessee By : Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abiram Kartikeyan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Hydro Pneumatic ITO-10(3)(1), Mumbai. Accessories India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 17, Raja Industrial Estate, P.K. Road, Nahur Village, Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080. PAN No. AAACH1351A Respondent Appellant Assessee by : Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi, AR Revenue by : Mr. Abiram Kartikeyan, DR Date of Hearing : 31/07/2018 Date of pronouncement: 26/10/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09. The ap…

Mahesh Pandurng Naik, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Thane

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahesh Pandurang Naik Acit, Circle- 4, Thane Flat No. 301, B-Wing, 3Rd 6Th, Floor, Ashar I.T. Vs. Floor, Festival Complex, Park, Road 16Z Wagle Achole Road, Nallasopara Indl. Estate, Thane- (E) Thane. 400604. Pan No. Adqpn4963L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

…to inadvertent mistake, the papers and documents, related to appeal remained to be handed over, which caused the delay. The Tribunal, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mst Katiji & Ors (supra), N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) condoned the above delay of 2191 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In Mst Katiji & Ors (supra), the principles of valuation was dismissed as time barred being 4 days beyond time by rejecting an application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mahesh Pandurnag 5 setting aside the order of the High Court dismissing…

Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistantce Scheme, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

…pendent spouse. The learned representative pointed out that though the delay was long, yet that cannot be a reason to reject the plea for condonation of delay and, for that matter, relied on the following judgements :- i) N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy, 7 SCC 123; ii) Baburao Deorao Wankhede vs Sewa Sahakari Sanstha & Anr., W.P No. 1974 of 1979 dated 02.08.1988; and, iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. vs Godawaribai w/o Laxmansigh Gahirewar & Ors, Civil Revision Application No. 904 of 1990 dated 23.03.1999. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue opposed the plea for condonation of del…

Crystal Constructions, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Crystal Construction, The Acit-21(1), 5Th Floor, Geetnajali Arcade, Pratyakshar Bhavan, Above Shamarao Vitthal Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex, Nehru Road, Ville Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400057 Pan: Aaefc0268N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2018

…after the affairs of the firm and well-versed with the related matters. The Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. 167 ITR 471, Balakrishnana V.M. Krishnan (1998) 7 SCC 123 and other judgments of various High Courts, submitted that the delay may be condoned and the assessee may be allowed to argue the case on merits. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that the assessee has failed to establish the reasonable cause which prevented it…