Bharatkumar Sekhsaria v. Dy. CIT

82 ITD 512Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#14445 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Bharatkumar Sekhsaria v. Dy. CIT

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 270/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

…such an interpretation would produce a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in not entertaining this appeal.” 20. In the case of Bharatkumar Sekhsaria 82 ITD 512 (MUM.), the Mumbai ITAT made the following observations, which are pertinent to the issue in hand before us: “The provisions of section 249(4)(a) are mandatory and were clearly attracted in the case of the assessee. Prior to the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989, there was a discretion with the Commissioner (Appeals) to exe…

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 1562/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

…such an interpretation would produce a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in not entertaining this appeal.” 20. In the case of Bharatkumar Sekhsaria 82 ITD 512 (MUM.), the Mumbai ITAT made the following observations, which are pertinent to the issue in hand before us: “The provisions of section 249(4)(a) are mandatory and were clearly attracted in the case of the assessee. Prior to the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989, there was a discretion with the Commissioner (Appeals) to exe…

M/S. Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions and are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 264/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Moved An Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Contents Thereof Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

…ned Departmental Representative relied on ITA Nos. 264 & 263/JP/2020 10 M/s Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle- Jhunjhunu another order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharatkumar Sekhsaria v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 512 in which the action of the CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal was held to be justified. He further relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 162 Taxman 16. 12. Adverting to the facts of the instant case we find that the assessee paid the tax due on income returned albeit after the disposal of…

M/S. Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions and are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 263/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Moved An Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Contents Thereof Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

…ned Departmental Representative relied on ITA Nos. 264 & 263/JP/2020 10 M/s Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle- Jhunjhunu another order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharatkumar Sekhsaria v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 512 in which the action of the CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal was held to be justified. He further relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 162 Taxman 16. 12. Adverting to the facts of the instant case we find that the assessee paid the tax due on income returned albeit after the disposal of…

Vinod K Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 3803/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3803 & 3804/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Hira Segnal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Gupta, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 144Section 249Section 249(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3803 & 3804/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) DCIT (OSD)-II, Central Shri Vinod K. Faria, बिधम/ Range-7, Room No. 413, Flat No. 3, Fairy Manor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 13-Gunbow Street, Fort, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 706 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAAPF1045J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Hira Segnal, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Prabhat Gupta, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.03.2020 Date…

Shree Gajanana Industries (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed, as above

ITA 6595/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 249(4)

…ssee's application for downward rectification of self-assessment tax was still pending. Per contra the learned Departmental Representative relied on another order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharatkumar Sckhsaris v. Dy. C!T[2002] 82 ITD 512 in which the action of the CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal was held to be justified. He further relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komelskshi v. Dy. CIT[2007] 162Taxman)16. 11. In the case of D. Komslakshi (supra), the assessee AOP had three members who had filed returns individually. The assessments were final…

Harshad P Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal(s) filed by the assessee are allowed and the CIT(A) is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal(s) of the assessee on merits

ITA 1349/MUM/2013[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha (DR)
Section 132Section 132BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 226(5)Section 27(1)

…n the record. 6. Ld. DR argued that the order passed by the CIT(A) is not appealable before ITAT and the assessee would have approached the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court under the writ jurisdiction and further relied upon the judgement reported viz (2002) 82 ITD 512(MUM) titled as Bharatkumar Sekhsaria Vs DCIT and 319 ITR 154( Bombay) titled as CIT Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. In Bharatkumar Sekhsaria Vs DCIT the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that no tax was paid with return of income but it was indicated that amount seized during search was to be considered as amount paid on account of tax –Assess…

Bharatkumar Sekhsaria v. Dy. CIT (82 ITD 512) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax