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)

U.P. Arthroplasty Society, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 261/LKW/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 U.P. Arthroplasty Society V. Cit (Exemption) 59/60, 1St Floor, Birhana Road Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaaau3390A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Dated 8/2/2018 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Act. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 12.2.2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. We Find That The Notice Of Hearing Had Been Sent Through Rpad To The Assessee, The Acknowledgement Of Which Has Been Received Back Showing Receipt Of Notice By The Assessee On 10/1/2019. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear Despite Having Knowledge Of The Date Of Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non Prosecution. In This Regard, We Place Reliance Upon The Following Case Laws:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)

Section 12A

…ase laws:- ITA No.261/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 2 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, get it revived by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/02/2019. [T. S. KAP…

Arvinder Pal Singh, Kharar vs. CIT II, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 256/CHANDI/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 256/Chd/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Arvinder Pal Singh, The Cit –Ii, बनाम Wine Contractor, Chandigarh #79, Ward 3, Kharar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Belps9829F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dhaiya, CIT DR

…Oil Mills vs. CIT’ (2008) 296 ITR 495 returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 5. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another’ (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 6. So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court. (अ…

Safety Plus Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 7412/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charystay Application No.27/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application No.27/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 vs Asstt.Commr. of Income-tax M/s Safety Plus Power Ltd., A-52, 2nd Floor, NirmanVihar, Circle-22(1) ,New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCE8687P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Salil Kappor, Advocate Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Revenue by Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 19.9.2018 in Ap…

Shri Narmada Architectural Systems Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for 4

ITA 751/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Surat20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meena

…her it requires effective persuasion also. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the appeals of the assessee are liable for dismissal in the light of judicial pronouncements by Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Others 118 ITR 461(SC), wherein their Lordship have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” Further, the Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default their lordship observ…

M/S. Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1625/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

Section 253

…wan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. D. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.B. Bhattachargee and Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. (2) Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd, (supra) and in view of the legal position and judicial precedents as mentioned earlier, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine…

V Kumar Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution

ITA 5264/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 V. Kumar Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, K-91, 2Nd Floor, Ward-26(1), Lajpat Nagar Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccn2394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

…n the part of the assessee shows that it is not interested in prosecuting the appeal field by it. Therefore, following the decisions mentioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. However, if the assessee, through proper application, explains the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the as…

M/S. Anand Triplex Board Ltd., Delhi vs. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3029/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishianand Triplex Board Ltd, Vs. Cit, 52, Mausam Vihar, Ghaziabad Delhi Pan: Aaeca9305M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

…rested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “if…

M/S. Hbn Dairies & Allied Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3027/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hsri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihbn Dairies & Allied Ltd, Vs. Ito (Tds), 302-303, Vardhman Tower, Ward-50(1), Sonia Complex, Vikashpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aach7852C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardhan Das, Sr. DR

…rested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “if…

Sandeep Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3014/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisandeep Aggarwal Vs. Acit, 34, Shanti Vihar, Delhi Central Circle-10, Pan: Aajpa8226B Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardhan Das, Sr. DR

…rested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “if…

Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

In the result, appeals and stay applications of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 5717/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…t of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeals and stay applications of the assessee as un-admitted. 3 ITA.No.5716 & 5717/Del./2018 & S.A.Nos. 632 & 633…

Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

In the result, appeals and stay applications of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…t of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeals and stay applications of the assessee as un-admitted. 3 ITA.No.5716 & 5717/Del./2018 & S.A.Nos. 632 & 633…

Sher Singh Yadav, Udham Singh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Udham Singh Nagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5587/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…t of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed. Order pronounced in t…

M/S Sushila Coke & Minerals, Hazaribagh vs. ITO WD-2(2), Hazaribagh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 312/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 M/S Sushila Coke & Commissioner Of Income- बनाम Minerals, Suresh Colony, Tax, Ravindra Path, / Hazaribagh V/S. Hazaribagh [Pan No. Abbfs 9152 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Chandan Das, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Hazaribag’S Order Dated 08.09.2016 Passed In Case No.19/Hzb/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’.

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2009-10 M/s Sushila Coke & Commissioner of Income- बनाम Minerals, Suresh Colony, tax, Ravindra Path, / Hazaribagh V/s. Hazaribagh [PAN No. ABBFS 9152 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Chandan Das, JCIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Haz…

Maa Transport Agency, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Asansol, Paschim Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 750/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Maa Transport Agency V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Kanchan Sadhu, Ward-1(2), Permer Advocate, Building, 54, G.T. Vivekanandapark, P.O. Road, (West), Nr. Ramkrishnamission, Dist. B.N.R. P,O. Pachim Bardhaman, Pin- Asansol, Dist. 713305 Pachm Bardhaman, [Pan No.Aakfm 9822 A] Pin-7133-4 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asansol’S Order Dated 28.02.2017, Passed In Case No.165/Cit(A)/Asl/Ward-2(2)/Asl/14-15, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today When The Case Was Called For Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Application For An Adjournment Filed By The Assessee In Spite Of Issue Of Notice By Rpad. It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Serious In Prosecuting This Appeal. Hence The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. For This View, We Find Support From The Following Decisions:- "1. In The Case Of Cit Vs B.N.Bhattacharjee & Another, Reported In 118 Itr 461 [Relevant Pages 477 & 478] Wherein Their Lordships Have Held That:

Section 143(3)

…is not serious in prosecuting this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. For this view, we find support from the following decisions:- "1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattacharjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that: ITA No.750/Kol/2017 A.Y, 2011-12 Maa Transport Agency. vs, ITO Wd-2(2), Asl. Page 2 "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it." 3. In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made a…

Manoj Kumar, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5226/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…t of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed. Order pronounced in t…

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2820/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 M/S Rockland Media & Dcit Communication Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 11 Khasra No.70/1/1 Vs. New Delhi Ground Floor New Delhi 110 085

For Appellant: : NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R

…the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 5. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 6. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals of assessee for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 for non-prosecution. 8. In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounce…

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2819/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 M/S Rockland Media & Dcit Communication Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 11 Khasra No.70/1/1 Vs. New Delhi Ground Floor New Delhi 110 085

For Appellant: : NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R

…the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 5. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 6. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals of assessee for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 for non-prosecution. 8. In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounce…

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2818/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 M/S Rockland Media & Dcit Communication Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 11 Khasra No.70/1/1 Vs. New Delhi Ground Floor New Delhi 110 085

For Appellant: : NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R

…the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 5. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 6. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals of assessee for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 for non-prosecution. 8. In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounce…

Tarun Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 4898/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…t of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed. Order pronounced in t…

Vineet Khattar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…t of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed. Order pronounced in t…

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

U.P. Arthroplasty Society, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

Arvinder Pal Singh, Kharar vs. CIT II, Chandigarh

Safety Plus Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi

Shri Narmada Architectural Systems Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

M/S. Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

V Kumar Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 26(1), New Delhi

M/S. Anand Triplex Board Ltd., Delhi vs. CIT, Ghaziabad

M/S. Hbn Dairies & Allied Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

Sandeep Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

Sher Singh Yadav, Udham Singh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Udham Singh Nagar

M/S Sushila Coke & Minerals, Hazaribagh vs. ITO WD-2(2), Hazaribagh

Maa Transport Agency, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Asansol, Paschim Medinipur

Manoj Kumar, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Panipat

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Tarun Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Ghaziabad

Vineet Khattar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Faridabad