Otters Club v. DIT

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

…le 34(5), but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club v. DIT [2017] 392 ITR 244 (Bom), Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order…

SHREE NAMAN DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Shree Naman बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-5(4) Developers Limited (Now Mumbai. Vs. Known As M/S. Shree Namn Developers Pvt. Ltd.) 315, Parekh Market, 39, J.S.S, Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn2568H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Rahul Raman (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon‟ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon‟ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TAJ IRON AND STEEL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4382/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit 4(3)(1) M/S. Taj Iron & Steel Works R. No.649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, Carmelos Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400020. Pathak Wadi, L. T. Road, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5807H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi / Shubham Rathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

ENIGMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.(NOW MERGED WITH KEYSTONE RLATORS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Enigma Construction Pvt. Dcit Central Circle-2(4) Ltd. (Now Merged With Income Tax Office, Old Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd,) Cgo Building, Mumbai. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Junction W.E. Highway, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9090J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. Justin सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

VIDYASAGAR MAHAVIR PRASAD SAH,MUMBAI vs. ADCIT 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2460/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad बिधम/ Adcit 23(3) 104, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Sah Vs. 22 A Band Stand Society Tardeo Rd, Mumbai-400007. 197-C, Kane Rd Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps5412H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (Dr) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/ 08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon‟ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon‟ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

MALABAR HILL CLUB LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.755/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Malabar Hill Club Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(2)(2) B. G. Kher Marg, Malabar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Vs. Hill, Mumbai-400006. Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 5(2)(3) बिधम/ Malabar Hill Club Ltd. Room No.566, 5Th Floor, B. G. Kher Marg, Malabar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Hill, Mumbai-400006. 400020.. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw3868M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistry/ Niraj Sheth Revenue By: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. Ita. No.755/M/2017

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

JAMSHED J. APPOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6594/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Jamshed J. Appoo Acit-3(1)(2) Room No.607, 6Th Floor, 5/B, Maria Apratment Vs. Apratment, 78, Palihili, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra (W), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafpa4769B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh P. Shah (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -08, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon‟ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon‟ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

UNITECH MARKETING SERVICES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE -17 (3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Unitech Marketing Services, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 511, Plot No. 15, Raheja Plaza, Circle-17(3), Co. Soc. Ltd. Veera Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Vs. Shah Industrial Estate, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 053

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYVIK FORESIGHT INNOVATIONS AND SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3321/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Dcit, Cir, 6(3)(1) M/S. Jayvik Foresight R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Innovations & Solutions Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Pvt. Ltd. Road, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Innova, Ganpatro Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj4085H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Shishir Dhamija (Dr) Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), M/s Future Retail Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ground Floor, Knowledge बिधम/ Road, Mumbai 400 020 House, Off-Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Vs. Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400 060 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACP6317L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 867/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Future Retail Ltd. ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), Grou…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. VINAY RAMAKANT SAPTE, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3830, 3831, 4546 & 5594/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) Dcit Cc-7(1), Room No. Shri Vinay Ramakant 653, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Sapte, बिधम/ 61/62, Tower A, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai400 022 Vs. Kalpataru Residency, Opp. Cine Planet, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadps6169H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prashant Kumar Gupta, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Pooja Shah, Shri Kiran Kapadia, Ars. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.03.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman ():

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3830, 3831, 4546 & 5594/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2013-14) DCIT CC-7(1), Room no. Shri Vinay Ramakant 653, 6th floor, Aayakar Sapte, बिधम/ 61/62, Tower A, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai400 022 Vs. Kalpataru Residency, Opp. Cine Planet, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AADPS6169H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Prashant Kumar Gupta, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Pooja Shah, Shri…

DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KALSHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-15(2)(1) M/S Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 357, 3Rd Floor, A-1, Ashian Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 705 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaack3955F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time bound by this Court, the period for which…

MARITIME VANGUARD PTE LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5999/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Maritime Vanguard Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit (International C/O Srbc & Associates, Taxation)-3(2)(1) Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Room No.1615, 16Th Floor, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcm3609F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short “The Act”) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel – 3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Drp”] Dated 27.06.2019 Relevant To The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “General 1. Erred In Assessing Total Income At Rs39,66,00,300 As Against Returned Income Of Rs Nil; Taxability Under The Income Tax Act. 1961 ('Act) A.Y.2016-17

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon‟ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon‟ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

JSM CORPORATION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3236/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Jsm Corporation Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-6(3) Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Todi Estate, A Wing, 3Rd Floor, Sunmill Compound, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabch5026K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Pramita Rathi/ Ishwer P. Rathi Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.03.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Revenue Expenses Of Rs.1,92,30,263/- Only Oil Ground That The Assessee Has Shown The Expenses Under The Head Preoperative Expenses In The Books Of Account.

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

ASST CIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DOKA INDIA P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1912/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Doka India Pvt. Ltd. 483A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Plot No. 26A, Sector-7, 601 Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400021. To 606, Mahavir Landmark Bldg, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7895H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/ Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short “The Act”) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel – I, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Drp”] Dated 29.12.2015 Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by 11 A.Y.2011-12 this Court, the pe…

DCIT CEN CIR -5(1), MUMBAI vs. CIKURA PROPERTIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar& Shri Ramlal Negi & Co. No. 181/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 457/Mum/2018) Dcit, Circle – 5(1) बनाम/ Cikura Properties Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 324, Master Mind Iv, Royal Floor, Air India Building Palms, Aarey Milk Colony, Nariman Point, Mumbai - Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 65 21 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc4109P Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 04/03/2020 06/08 /2020 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar- Am: The Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Thecommon Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai. The Revenue Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Merit, Whereas, The Assessee Has Challenged The Jurisdiction

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which…

GOLDMOHUR DESIGN AND APPAREL PARK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX - 7, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon‘ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon‘ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed ―while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time bound by this Court, the period for which…

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income-Tax Mahindra Towers Circle – 2(2) Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…le 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon‟ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon‟ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time- bound by this Court, the period for which…