CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

Vijaya Gtb Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessees stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

…n order on the merits of the case and not dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. For this proposition, we place reliance upon following case laws: 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017} 154 DTR (Bom) 302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969)74 ITR 1(SC) Accordingly in the interest of justice we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 4. The learned counsel of the assessee has also given undertaking that he…

DCIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Nipun I Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and issue raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

…e us, we find that the respondent may support an order on the ground decided against him even though he has not appealed an order of CIT(A) deciding the ground partially against the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manick Sons [1969] 74 ITR 1 (SC) has interpreted the provision of section 254 of the Act wherein the respondent has been allowed to support the order appealed against on any other ground decided against him even though he may not have appealed against the said order. It was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that power conferred by section 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Ac…

Bharav Tube (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6782/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Bharav Tube (India) Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2) C/O. M/S. Nakoda Metal Industries, Room No. 204, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Room No. 101, 1St Floor, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 004 Lakdawala Saphire Centre, Vs. 4Th Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeft 1198 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 10.08.2017, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Wherein The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Dismissed The Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

…o pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non prosecution. For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws: 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969)74 ITR 1 (SC) 7. Accordingly in the interest of justice, I remit the issue raised in appeal to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 8. In the resu…

Ashok Kumar D. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5965/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Ashok Kumar D. Jain Ito-9(2)(1), बनाम/ 11, Unnat Nagar Chs, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mg Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpj 7464 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pratik Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 20.06.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Appellant Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause In Not Attending The Appellate Proceedings Before The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai & Thus The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Deserves To Be Set Aside.

…s an order on the merits of the case and not dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws: 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTK (Bom)302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969)74 ITR 1(SC) 6. Accordingly, in the interest of justice I remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 7. Learned…

Maruti International Pictures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4664/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Maruti International Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 11(1)(2), बनाम/ 32, Rock Garden, Oberoi Complex, Mumbai New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 7884 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anil Thakkar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- 4, Mumbai Dated 15.03.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-12, Wherein The Learned Cit-A Has Dismissed The Appeal For Non-Prosecution. 2. Upon Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative & Perusing The Records, I Find That It Is Incumbent Upon The Learned Cit-A To Pass An Order On The Merits Of The Case & Not Dismiss The Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

…miss the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws: 2 Maruti International Pictures Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom)302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969)74 ITR 1(SC) 4. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the learned CIT-A. Learned CIT-A is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 5. The learned counsel of the assessee has also given undertaking tha…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Ramakant Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1287 To 1290/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Ramakant Gaggar Tax- Central Circle-8(1), 302, Gaurav Aprt, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Gokuldham, Aayakar Bhavan, Goreaon (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent .. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./Pan :Abkpg9952C अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Santanu Kr.Saikia प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 8.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2016 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Directed Against The Orders Dated 12.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2006-07 & Order Dated 02.12.2014 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2009-10 Respectively Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai. Since These Appeals Are Filed Against The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Therefore For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, These Appeals Were Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order.

…find from this rule that respondent may support an order on the ground decided against him even though he has not appealed against an order deciding one of the grounds against him. We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manick Sons, 74 ITR 1(SC) has interpreted the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act and not that the rule 27 of Appellate Tribunal, wherein respondent has been allowed to support the order appealed against on any other ground decided against him even tthough he may not have appealed against. It was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the powers conferred by thi…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Ramakant Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1287 To 1290/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Ramakant Gaggar Tax- Central Circle-8(1), 302, Gaurav Aprt, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Gokuldham, Aayakar Bhavan, Goreaon (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent .. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./Pan :Abkpg9952C अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Santanu Kr.Saikia प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 8.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2016 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Directed Against The Orders Dated 12.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2006-07 & Order Dated 02.12.2014 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2009-10 Respectively Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai. Since These Appeals Are Filed Against The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Therefore For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, These Appeals Were Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order.

…find from this rule that respondent may support an order on the ground decided against him even though he has not appealed against an order deciding one of the grounds against him. We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manick Sons, 74 ITR 1(SC) has interpreted the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act and not that the rule 27 of Appellate Tribunal, wherein respondent has been allowed to support the order appealed against on any other ground decided against him even tthough he may not have appealed against. It was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the powers conferred by thi…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Ramakant Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1287 To 1290/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Ramakant Gaggar Tax- Central Circle-8(1), 302, Gaurav Aprt, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Gokuldham, Aayakar Bhavan, Goreaon (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent .. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./Pan :Abkpg9952C अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Santanu Kr.Saikia प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 8.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2016 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Directed Against The Orders Dated 12.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2006-07 & Order Dated 02.12.2014 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2009-10 Respectively Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai. Since These Appeals Are Filed Against The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Therefore For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, These Appeals Were Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order.

…find from this rule that respondent may support an order on the ground decided against him even though he has not appealed against an order deciding one of the grounds against him. We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manick Sons, 74 ITR 1(SC) has interpreted the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act and not that the rule 27 of Appellate Tribunal, wherein respondent has been allowed to support the order appealed against on any other ground decided against him even tthough he may not have appealed against. It was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the powers conferred by thi…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Ramakant Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.1287 To 1290/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Ramakant Gaggar Tax- Central Circle-8(1), 302, Gaurav Aprt, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Gokuldham, Aayakar Bhavan, Goreaon (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent .. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./Pan :Abkpg9952C अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Santanu Kr.Saikia प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 8.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2016 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Directed Against The Orders Dated 12.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2006-07 & Order Dated 02.12.2014 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2009-10 Respectively Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai. Since These Appeals Are Filed Against The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Therefore For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, These Appeals Were Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order.

…find from this rule that respondent may support an order on the ground decided against him even though he has not appealed against an order deciding one of the grounds against him. We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manick Sons, 74 ITR 1(SC) has interpreted the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act and not that the rule 27 of Appellate Tribunal, wherein respondent has been allowed to support the order appealed against on any other ground decided against him even tthough he may not have appealed against. It was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the powers conferred by thi…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Parshuram Amin, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5426/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumbai- Vs. Parshuram Maganlal 400020 Amin, M-19, Someshwar Enclave, Nr. South Gujrat University, Udhana, Magdalla Road, Surat, Gujrat-395007 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ABLPA 8022 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5427/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumba…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Parashuram Maganlal Amin, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5426/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumbai- Vs. Parshuram Maganlal 400020 Amin, M-19, Someshwar Enclave, Nr. South Gujrat University, Udhana, Magdalla Road, Surat, Gujrat-395007 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ABLPA 8022 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5427/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumba…