Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar

3 SCC 242Supreme Court of India2000#1343 most cited

What is Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar authority for?

A court or quasi-judicial authority, tasked with deciding disputes, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case for default if a party is absent at a hearing. It is not obligated to keep the matter pending or pursue it on the absent party's behalf.

85

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar · New India Assurance v. Srinivasan · 3 SCC 242 · inherent power to dismiss for default · non-prosecution of appeal · non-appearance · Section 250 Income Tax Act · Section 253 Income Tax Act · quasi-judicial body · dismissal of appeal for non-compliance

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 147Section 1961Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 114section 253(3)section 253(5)reasoned ordersection 80p(2)section 253genuineness of the transactionsection 80pdelay in filing appealunexplained investmentscrutiny assessmentlimited scrutiny

Judgments citing Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar

VAIBHAV TEWARI, LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7737/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvaibhav Tewari, Vs. Cit(A), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai- 88 Krishna Niwas, Society 400051. Park Narhi, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan/Gir No: Aecpt2741P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 80D

…present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New ITA No.7737/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 Vaibhav Tewari India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before i…

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7577/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…s moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called of for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before…

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7576/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called of for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before i…

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7575/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…s moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called of for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before…

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7574/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…s moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called of for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before…

JAIMIN GAUTAM MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7573/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…s moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called of for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before…

SHREE KRISHNA WOOLLEN MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethshree Krishna Woollen Vs. Dcit Circle 15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Mills Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020. Krishna Mills Compound, L. B.S. Marg, Bhandup West S.O, 400078, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No: Aabcs9353G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called ITA No.6025/MUM/2025/AY 2012-13 Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-j…

VINODKUMAR GHISULAL SHAH(HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4172/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvinod Kumar Ghisulal Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai. 2Nd (Huf). Room No.205, Floor, Piramal A-101, P2 Floor, Vijaya Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- Residency, Chiwda Gully, 400012. Lalbaugh, Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No: Aaghv3367R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

…s moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority which ITA No.4172/MUM/2025/AY 2012-13 Vinodkumar Ghisulal Shah (HUF) has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called for hearing and the party is not present, the Court or the judicial or quasi-judicial b…

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1948/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: \nSmt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 250(6)Section 69A

…e on a matter of dispute,\ninherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been\nupheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs.\nShankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs.\nSrinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as\nfollows,\n\"That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a\nlist between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in\ndefault. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present,\nthe court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is un…

PROTON POSITIVE HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ecide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as under- "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decido a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no o…

ANJANEYULU REDDY AMMIREDDY,VINUKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARASARAOPET

ITA 542/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Anjaneyulu Reddy Ammireddy, Income Tax Officer, Vinukonda. Ward-1, Pan: Aelpa3332C Narasaraopet. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 25/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/02/2024. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69

…ecide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as under: "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no o…

TOUCH TONE TELESERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 987/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR
Section 114Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ecide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the later case, the Apex Court has held as under:- “That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body instituted li…

PURNA CHANDER RAGAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above observations

ITA 984/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

…has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal therefore; duty is an inherent power, which every tribunal possesses. This was power approved in Dr. P. Nallia Thampy vs Shankar (1984(Supp) rence SCC63). In New India Assurance Ns. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority, which has duty to decide a lies between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, court or judicial or Quasi-judicial Body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to…

USMAN VALI PATEL,BHARUCH GUJARAT vs. WARD 1(2), INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARUCH

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

ITA 183/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

…(i) CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya, 118 ITR 461, (ii) M/s Chemipol vs. UOI, Central Excise Appeal No.32 of 2009, (iii) Nandramda Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260, (iv) Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, [1984 (supp) SCC 63], (v) New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242, (vi) Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.2006/Del/2011, dated 19.12.2001, (vii) Chadha Finlease Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.3013/Del/2011, dated 20.12.2011 and (viii) CIT vs. Gold Leaf Captial Corp. Ltd., ITA No.798 of 2009, dated 02.09.2011. He held that no details, documents ITA No.183/SRT/2025/AY.2011-12 Usman Vali Patel or submissions have b…

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

ITA 135/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Mrs. S. K. Gogra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 80P

…ecide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as under- "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no o…

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 687/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke Smt. Suman Choudhary ACIT, Vs. E-74, Power House Road Circle-01, Opp Railway Station Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADQPC7048F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA & Sh. Harshit Agrawal, CA jktLo dh…

VIMALKUMAR VAJUBHAI KATRODIYA,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), SURAT

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

ITA 1266/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1266/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Vimalkumar Vajubhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Katrodiya Income-Tax,Circle-2(2), Surat, Vs. 90, Mamta Park Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate- Spinning Mill Kapodara, 395 001 Varachha Road, Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqipk 2458 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

…ol vs. Union of India [Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009], (v) Nandramdas Dwarkadaas AIR 1958 MP 260, (iv) Dr. ITA No.1266/Srt/2024 A.Y 16-17 Vimalkumar V Katrodiya P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar (1984) SCC 63 (vii) New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242 and (viii) CIT vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. (ITA No.798 of 2009) (Del). He observed that when the assessee is non-co- operative, it can be concluded that the assessee did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-genuineness of the claim. Therefore, the case was fit for dismissal. However, he has decided the appeal on…

G S REAL ESTATE AND ALLIED LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1- DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 222/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 69A

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 GS Real Estate and Allied ITO-1 Ltd., Indore 207, Silver ARC Plaza, 20/1, बनाम/ New Palasia, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) TAN: AAECG0516G Assessee by Shri Venus Rawka, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee Under Section 253 of the Inc…

BRIJLAXMI PAPER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 854/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 854/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited,……..Appellant 686, Shrachi Tower, Anandapur Em Byepass, Kolkata-700107 [Pan:Aafcb2003G] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ant and had no regards for the statutory proceedings. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P. Nalla Tampy -vs.- Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance -vs.- Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242 as well as Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nirmal Singh & Others (Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O & M) dated 01.05.2014. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del) similar view had been taken. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, convinced that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and, th…

BRIJLAXMI PAPER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 853/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 853/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited,……..Appellant 686, Shrachi Tower, Anandapur Em Byepass, Kolkata-700107 [Pan:Aafcb2003G] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

…ant and had no regards for the statutory proceedings. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P. Nalla Tampy -vs.- Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance -vs.- Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242 as well as Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nirmal Singh & Others (Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O & M) dated 01.05.2014. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del) similar view had been taken. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, convinced that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and, th…

Showing 1–20 of 85 · Page 1 of 5