What is CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another authority for?

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

How many judgments cite CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another?

1,656 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 250, Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 142(1).

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461)

Medical College Employees Credit Co-Operative Society Limited No. 721, Trivandrum vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 465/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Medical College Employees Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Medical College P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695011 [Pan: Aafam2291P] .......... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 68

…Rs. 3,73,60,161/- 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The learned A.R. has filed a letter seeking adjournment on the ground the senior partner of the CA firm is out of country. The request for adjournment is declined, as the matter can be disposed of without entering into the merits, as the CIT(A) has disposed…

Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1309/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1309/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Sumitradevi The Ito बनाम/ Kamalkumar Agrawal Ward-5(3)(2) V/S. C/O.Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Times Square-1 Opp. Ram Baug Bungalow Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaupa 5783 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

…reasonable to infer from the continued non-compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue its appeal. Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 5 4.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case…

Chaitanya Narahari Bhosale, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1510/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250(6)Section 68

…Rs.65,14,563/-. 4. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted by him, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and another reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC), dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Short Term Capital G…

Kochukunju Raghu, Perinjankonam vs. ITO, Ward-72(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 540/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kocukunju Raghu Sreelayam, Perinjankonal Vadasserikonam 695143 [Pan: Ajbpr0539F] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 3, Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajiv, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148

…,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 and few other judgements. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) without averting to the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal raised before him, merely d…

Kalathindavida Muhammad Riyas, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 353/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalathindavida Muhammad Riyas K.V. House, Pattayam Kolanchery, Kannur 670601 [Pan: Awlpm4967F] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 4, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…posits. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor is there any application for adjournment. Therefore, I proceed to dispose the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. I find that the learned CIT(A), without averting to the stat…

Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1023/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1023/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indur Developers & Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Agencies Private Limited Nizamabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabci4254Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao,Ar (Through Virtual Mode) Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/02/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 37

…ough the case was posted for hearing on four occasions. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex- parte for non-prosecution, by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC). 7. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri S.Rama Rao submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of finance charges under the head layout development expenditure on altogether…

Pattambi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Pattambi vs. ITO, Palakkkad

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 909/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

…(i) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution placing reliance of the decision in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal in the present appeal raising various grounds for both the assessment years. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset we find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine for non-prosecution without…

Pattambi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Pattambi vs. ITO, Palakkad

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 908/COCH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

…(i) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution placing reliance of the decision in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal in the present appeal raising various grounds for both the assessment years. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset we find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine for non-prosecution without…

Chandra Bhawan, Kaushambi vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Kaushambi

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

ITA 41/ALLD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assis Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Tant Commissioner Of Income 212206 Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Present Address National Faceless Assessment 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Centre, Delhi Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Ward-2(5), Kaushambi 212206 Present Address 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.01.2024 (For The Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 250Section 69A

…the Cr.P.C. before the CJM, Allahabad. However, the ld. CIT(A), thereafter records that despite three notices, no compliance was made by the assessee. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattarcharya 118 ITR 461 SC, Nandram Das Dwarka Das AIR 1958 M.P. 260, Dr. P. Nala Thampi vs. Shankar (1984) (Supp) SCC 63 and New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the assessee was not interested in pursuing its appeal and was only using dilatory tactics. 19 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan…

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 146/ALLD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.145, 146/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur Khas, Mauaima, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19 Vide Separate Orders Dated 31.07.2024. As The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Same, The Same Are Taken Up For Disposal By Way Of Common Order. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 145/Alld/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Holding That The Appellant Is Not Keen To Pursue The Appeal Without Giving An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Giving Any Finding On The Statement Of Facts As Filed Along With Memo Of Appeal. A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…terial / argument on record in support of the grounds taken in appeal and against the order of the ld. AO. Therefore, relying upon A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s Auto King the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattarchya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Private Limited 38 ITD 320 Delhi as also the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of Vipul Logistic and Warehousing (Pvt. Ltd.) vs. ITO , he dismissed the appeals of the assessee holding that no interference was called for in the AO’s order. 6. Aggrieved with the s…

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.145, 146/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur Khas, Mauaima, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19 Vide Separate Orders Dated 31.07.2024. As The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Same, The Same Are Taken Up For Disposal By Way Of Common Order. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 145/Alld/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Holding That The Appellant Is Not Keen To Pursue The Appeal Without Giving An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Giving Any Finding On The Statement Of Facts As Filed Along With Memo Of Appeal. A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…terial / argument on record in support of the grounds taken in appeal and against the order of the ld. AO. Therefore, relying upon A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s Auto King the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattarchya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Private Limited 38 ITD 320 Delhi as also the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of Vipul Logistic and Warehousing (Pvt. Ltd.) vs. ITO , he dismissed the appeals of the assessee holding that no interference was called for in the AO’s order. 6. Aggrieved with the s…

Chandra Bhawan, Kaushambi vs. Addl./Joint/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

ITA 141/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assis Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Tant Commissioner Of Income 212206 Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Present Address National Faceless Assessment 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Centre, Delhi Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Ward-2(5), Kaushambi 212206 Present Address 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.01.2024 (For The Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 250Section 69A

…the Cr.P.C. before the CJM, Allahabad. However, the ld. CIT(A), thereafter records that despite three notices, no compliance was made by the assessee. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattarcharya 118 ITR 461 SC, Nandram Das Dwarka Das AIR 1958 M.P. 260, Dr. P. Nala Thampi vs. Shankar (1984) (Supp) SCC 63 and New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the assessee was not interested in pursuing its appeal and was only using dilatory tactics. 19 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan…

Provash Adhikari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…2008 (iii) M/s. Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co., ITA No. 5532/DEL/2010 (iv) Shyam Sunder Somani, ITA No. 1038/KOL/2011 (v) M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shiksha, ITA No. 706- 707/LKW/2010 (vi) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) The Ld. CIT(A) did not go into the rest of the grounds of appeal, which were found to be general in nature nor has given any specific comments on the merits of the case. We also note that the Ld. AO made the addition by giving the following finding, which is mentioned in para 4 of the appellate order and is reproduced as under: “Information…

The Calicut Co-Operative Farms Feeds and Agro Industrial Service Society Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1 (4), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: ------- None --------

Section 80P

…netisation period. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution placing reliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 without entering into the merits. 4. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal. Keeping in view the statutory principle of law that ordinarily the litigant does not stands gain anything by filing the appeal belatedly, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordi…

Savatex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5319/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ravi Dasija/Kiran Mehta

Section 271(1)(c)

…d by the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT vs Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320(Del) (ii) Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) (iii) New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) (iv) CIT vs. B. N. Bhatachargee And Another 118 ITR 461 (SC). 4.2 The Hon'ble ITAT, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in the case of M/s Bindra Warehousing Corporation, Itarsi US ITO, ITA No. 153/Jab/2016 and in Jabalpur Sahkari Dugh Sangh vs ITO, ITA No. 201 to 203/Jab/2015 has found assessee as not interested in pursuing appeal on the basis of just one non-attendance before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Tribunal…

Dattatray Ramdas Gaikwad, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1556/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Harsh S. Bhuta (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…ot submit any details, the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojiro Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Anr (118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) dismissed the appeal. While doing so, he further 4 held that nothing was brought before him to explain the source of cash of Rs.50,00,000/- and investment made in jewellery of Rs.30,22,348/-. 7. Aggrieved with suc…

Kuldip Ramesh Baagwe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1113/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Kuldip Ramesh Baagwe, Ito, Ward 6(3), Pune 592 Kasewadi, Bhavani Peth, Pune-411042, Maharashtra Vs Pan-Aivpb7422J Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69

…of notice(s) of hearing by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution and endorsed the finding of the Ld. A O by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision(s) of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd 381 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO. 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for non appearance of the assessee during the appellate proceedings and all the ground…

Karukutty Merchants Association, Karukutty, Angamaly vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raokarukutty Merchants Association The Income Tax Officer Chakiath Building Kap Complex Vs. Karukutty P.O., Angalamly 683576 Rly. Station Road [Pan: Aabtk8438K] Aluva 683101 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144

…. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limini for non-prosecution placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BN Bhattacharya [1997] 118 ITR 461 (SC). 4. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limini for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the issue involved in the appeal. It is settled position of…

Pullan Paulose Paul, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2 (4), Thrissur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/COCH/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raopullan Paulose Paul The Income Tax Officer 19/45, Pullan House Ward - 2(4), Thrissur Vs. North Chalakudy 680307 [Pan: Akjpp5922B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)

…of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limini for want of prosecution placing reliance of the decision in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called on, nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits as under. 5. I find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limini for non-prosecution without enteri…

Ojashvee Exim Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dilip Prasad Ward 15(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as dismissed

ITA 3887/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanojashvee Exim Private Vs. Dilip Prasad Ward Limited 15(2)(4) 202, Vrindavan Building, Room No. 360, 3Rd Floor, Opp Iit Main Gate, Powai – Aayakar Bhavan, 400076. Mahirshi Karve Road, Pan: Aaaco0474D Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ojashvee Exim Private Vs. Dilip Prasad Ward Limited 15(2)(4) 202, Vrindavan Building, Room No. 360, 3rd Floor, Opp IIT Main Gate, Powai – Aayakar Bhavan, 400076. Mahirshi Karve Road, PAN: AAACO0474D Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : None Department Represented by : Shri. Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr. DR Date of conclusion of : 03.10.2024 Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1…

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

What is CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

Medical College Employees Credit Co-Operative Society Limited No. 721, Trivandrum vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Trivandrum

Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

Chaitanya Narahari Bhosale, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

Kochukunju Raghu, Perinjankonam vs. ITO, Ward-72(3), New Delhi

Kalathindavida Muhammad Riyas, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Kannur

Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Nizamabad

Pattambi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Pattambi vs. ITO, Palakkkad

Pattambi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Pattambi vs. ITO, Palakkad

Chandra Bhawan, Kaushambi vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Kaushambi

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

Chandra Bhawan, Kaushambi vs. Addl./Joint/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

Provash Adhikari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(4), Kolkata

The Calicut Co-Operative Farms Feeds and Agro Industrial Service Society Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1 (4), Kozhikode

Savatex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai

Dattatray Ramdas Gaikwad, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune

Kuldip Ramesh Baagwe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

Karukutty Merchants Association, Karukutty, Angamaly vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

Pullan Paulose Paul, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2 (4), Thrissur

Ojashvee Exim Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dilip Prasad Ward 15(2) (4), Mumbai