Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deegee Orchards P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…ore the lower authorities. Accordingly he prayed that the delay in filing cross objection may be condoned. The Ld A.R, in this regard, placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998)(7 SCC 123), wherein it is held that the length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. The Ld A.R also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Khatiji and 3 M/s. Deegee Orchards Pvt. Ltd. others (167 ITR 471)(SC) in order to contend that the subs…

Movement Impex Trading Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

…pected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” 10. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Bal Krishnan v/s. M. Krishnamurthy - [(1998) 7 SCC 123] observed that: 9 M/s. Movement Impex Trading Co./A C I T - 21(1) “The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties & to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform in to a good cause. Rules…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part for statistical purposes, in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm

…espected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” 5. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Bal Krishnan v/s. M. Krishnamurthy - [(1998) 7 SCC 123] observed that: “The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties & to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform in to a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights…

Ajay Radheshvam Kejriwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1903/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ajay Radheshyam Kejriwal Ito, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai-C 13, 5Th Floor, 1-A-65, Manali Evershine Vs. Nagar, Malad (West), Bandra. Mumbai-400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpk4820F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Hemalatha Assessee By: Shri Neelam C. Jadhav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law Applicable Thereto, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding The Validity Of The Re- Opening Of Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law Applicable Thereto, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Purchase From Various

…f the view that the controversy is also required to be decided on merit, therefore, we are of the view that the delay is liable to be condoned. Hence relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, we condoned the dely. ISSUE NO.1:- 6. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment order u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. At the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee did not press this issue, therefore, this issue is being decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee being not…

Siroya Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Siroya Developers, Ito 17(3)(3) 101 Kingston Towers, Previously Assessed With Acit Vs. G D Ambedkar Marg, 31(3) Parel Tank Road, Parel (E), Mumbai Mumbai 400 033. Pan Aanfs1544G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…s of the aforesaid reasons, the representative relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors [167 ITR 471] as well as in the case of in the case of N Balakrishnan vs. M .Krishnamurthy [(1988) 7 SCC 123] and submitted that the CIT(A) grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal and, in turn, dismissing it as unadmitted. 6. On the other hand, learned DR has merely reiterated the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect. 7. Having considered the rival stands, we find that section 249(3) of the Act permits the CIT(A) to admit an appeal, w…

Sumitomo Chemical India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sumitomo Chemical India The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax- 1(3)(1), 6Th Floor, Moti Mahal, 195, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, J Tata Road, Churchgate, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaecs3750L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…High Courts as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Courts have held 7 Assessment Year: 2008-09 that the expression “sufficient cause” has to be considered with justice oriented approach. In N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. 8. In the case of Collector Land A…

Misc Berhad, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.574/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2008-09) MISC Berhad v. Deputy Director of Income-tax C/o Crescent Shipping Agency (India) Ltd. (International Taxation) Himalayas, 4th Floor, Geetmala Complex, Range 3(2)(2) Near Shah Indl Estate, Scindia House, Deonar, Govandi, Mumbai – 400 038 Mumbai – 400 088 PAN NO. AAACM 1736 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Shri C.S. Shah Revenue by : Shri Samuel Darse Date of Hearing : 11.10.2017 Date of…

Sangeeta Jagdish Keny, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y : 2009-10 Mrs. Sangeeta Jagdish Keny Vs. ITO, Ward– 26(1)(1), Mumbai 4/15, Vaity House, Deonar (Respondent) Village, Mumbai 400 088 PAN : AGHPK6293J (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Deepak Tralshawala Respondent by : Ms. N. Hemalatha Date of Hearing : 02/08/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/2017 O R D E R The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-28, Mumbai dated 28.02.2013, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10, which in turn has arisen from the order pa…