Otters Club v. DIT

392 ITR 244High Court2017#454 most cited

What is Otters Club v. DIT authority for?

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2020.

Also referred to as

Otters Club v. DIT · Tribunal order beyond 90 days · assessment procedure · Bombay High Court · appeal period · time limit for tribunal orders · income tax act

Issues it is cited on

section 143indiasection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Otters Club v. DIT

Ramesh Govindbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 64/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented Ramesh Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 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…

Rivendell Pe, Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms as indicated above

ITA 6573/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)

…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…

J. B. Boda Reinsurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6194/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Dml Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,राजकोट"यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of Name of ITA No. No. Year Appellant Respondent M/s. DML Exim Deputy Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of 405, Embassy 1. 27/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Income-tax, Tower, Jawahar Circle-1(2), Rajkot Road, Opp. Public garden Rajkot M/s. DML Exim Deputy Pvt. Ltd. 360/Rjt/2015 Commissioner of 405, Embassy 2. 2011-12 Income-tax, Tower, Jawahar Circle-1(2), Rajkot Road, Opp. Public garden Rajkot M/s. DML Exim Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant 405, Embassy…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S D.M.L. Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 360/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,राजकोट"यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of Name of ITA No. No. Year Appellant Respondent M/s. DML Exim Deputy Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of 405, Embassy 1. 27/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Income-tax, Tower, Jawahar Circle-1(2), Rajkot Road, Opp. Public garden Rajkot M/s. DML Exim Deputy Pvt. Ltd. 360/Rjt/2015 Commissioner of 405, Embassy 2. 2011-12 Income-tax, Tower, Jawahar Circle-1(2), Rajkot Road, Opp. Public garden Rajkot M/s. DML Exim Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant 405, Embassy…

M/S. D.M.L. Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 315/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,राजकोट"यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of Name of ITA No. No. Year Appellant Respondent M/s. DML Exim Deputy Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of 405, Embassy 1. 27/Rjt/2016 2012-13 Income-tax, Tower, Jawahar Circle-1(2), Rajkot Road, Opp. Public garden Rajkot M/s. DML Exim Deputy Pvt. Ltd. 360/Rjt/2015 Commissioner of 405, Embassy 2. 2011-12 Income-tax, Tower, Jawahar Circle-1(2), Rajkot Road, Opp. Public garden Rajkot M/s. DML Exim Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant 405, Embassy…

JCIT (OSD) - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Tirupati Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 69/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Jcit (Osd) – 7(3) Vs. M/S. Tirupati Constructions Mumbai 214, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No.Aafft0513J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O.No.23/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.69/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM JCIT (OSD) – 7(3) Vs. M/s. Tirupati Constructions Mumbai 214, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No.AAFFT0513J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O.No.23/Mum/2020 (Arising Out of ITA No.69/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Tirupati Constructions Vs. JCIT (OSD) – 7(3) 214, Laxmi Plaza, Mumbai Laxmi Industrial Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No.AAFFT0513J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Respondent by Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, C…

ACIT 27 (2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Pradhyumn Prataparai Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 1489/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1489/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Sheel GautamFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1489/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT 27(2) Shri Pradhyumn Prataprai Room No. 420, 4th floor, Thakkar, बिधम/ Tower No. 6, Vashi 703 B, Krishna Neelkanth Vihar Shaid Bhagat Singh Railway Station Complex, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 703 Kunwar Marg Vidyavihar, East, Mumbai-400077 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABPT5648J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Vinay Sheel Gautam, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : None सुनवा…

ITO Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. M/S Sumangala Machineries, Kalyan

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

ITA 1300/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1300 & 1301/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Bhera Ram, DR byFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRIS. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1300 & 1301/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s Sumangala ITO Ward 1(4), Machineries, 1ST floor, Mohan Plaza, Gala No. C-3, Shree Near Mohan Pride Wayle बिधम/ Compound Plot No. 1280 Nagar, Khadkpada Vs. Chotani Compound Kalyan(w), Thane-421301 Narpoli Bhiwandi, Thane- 421302 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AARFS9163K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Bhera Ram, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : None सुनव…

ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane vs. M/S Plus Suppliers, Thane

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

ITA 1261/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1261/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Beraram, DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Jain, AR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…0IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1261/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Plus Suppliers, ITO Ward – 3(2), R. No. 14, 6th floor, B- C/o- National Cloth बिधम/ Stores, Station Road, wing, Wagle Industrial Vs. Jambli Naka, Thane(w) Estate, Thane (w), Pin-400 604 Pin-400601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAHFP3583A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Beraram, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Rajesh Jain, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.03.2020 Date of…

Tokheim India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6601/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6601/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani /MsFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6601/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITO – 15(3)(1), M/s Tokheim India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Building No. 2, Plot No. 66, बिधम/ Churchgate TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Thane, Mumbai-400710 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCK3414F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pankaj R. Toprani /Ms. Krypa R. Toprani, ARs by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Uodal Raj Singh, DR सुनवाईकीत…

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 1791/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Doshi a/w, Ms. DipanjaliFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…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…

Nilesh Ajitkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), Nashik

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3488/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…at a time when a disaster, notified under 6 आ अ सं. 3488/मुं/2019 ("न. व.2009-10) 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…

Income Tax Officer-21(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Natwar B Waghela, Mumbai

ITA 4779/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. KaushikFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Chotnani
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148

…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…

Vinod K Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 3803/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3803 & 3804/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Hira Segnal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Gupta, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 144Section 249Section 249(4)

…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. 3803 & 3804/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) DCIT (OSD)-II, Central Shri Vinod K. Faria, बिधम/ Range-7, Room No. 413, Flat No. 3, Fairy Manor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 13-Gunbow Street, Fort, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 706 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAAPF1045J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Hira Segnal, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Prabhat Gupta, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.03.2020 Date…

Paras Steel Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7211/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7211/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Gajendra GolechhaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7211/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO 13(2)(4) M/s Paras Steel R.No. 412, 4th floor Corporation AayakarBhavan, M. K. 505, Gupta Bhawan, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 Ahmedabad Street, Vs. CarnacaBunder, Mumbai-400 009 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAAFP1172A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Gajendra Golechha, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kiran Unavekar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.02.2020 Date of Hearing…

Vikrant Jaywant Sankhe, Palghar vs. ITO WD (1), Palghar

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

ITA 7318/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7318/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Raman Shah, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Samatha Mullamuri
Section 143Section 144Section 69C

…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. 7318/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) ITO Wd-(1) Shri Vikrant Jayant Taluka Palghar, Distt- Sankhe, Palghar-401404 4, Gr. Floor , Sagar बिधम/ Tarang, Tarapur Road, Vs. Chitralaya, Boisar, Tal. Palghar, Distt-Thane- 401504 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AMFPD2818B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Raman Shah, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Samatha Mullamuri, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.02.2020 Date of Hearing घोष…

Kwa Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemptions)-1(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 777/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramesh C. Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 777/मुं/2019 ("न. व.2013-14) Kwa Trust, 52, 5Th Floor, Maker Tower ‘F’ Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan:Aaatk 0114F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)-1(4), Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 012. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri V. Mohan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2020 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2020 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13

…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…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1460/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…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 ITA Nos. 1459-1460/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Futura Polyster Ltd. Vs ITO-6(3)(1) 43 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…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1459/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…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 ITA Nos. 1459-1460/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Futura Polyster Ltd. Vs ITO-6(3)(1) 43 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…