Otters Club v. DIT

Regus Business Centre P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ramesh C. Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1110/मुं/2017 ("न. व.2012-13) Regus Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. Level -2, Raheja Centre Point, Near Mumbai University, Opp. Bandra Kurla Complex, Santacruz East, Mumbai 400 098 Pan: Aadcr1920Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 13(3)(1) Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/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…

J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E) 2 (1), 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. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…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. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT (E) 2(1) J. K. Trust Bombay, 5th floor, Piramal Ground Floor, New Hind बिधम/ House, Narottam Morarjee Chambers, Lalbaug Vs. Marg, Bellard Estate, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAATT0611L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) J. K. Trust Bombay, DCIT (E) 2(1) 5th floor, Piramal Ground Floor, N…

Mr. Hanuman Dhanania, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17 (1)(5), 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. 1255/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…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. 1255/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO 17(1)(5), Mr. Hanuman D. Room No. 117, Aayakar Dhanania, Bhavan, Churchgate Rly Prop. Bharat Forge & Pipe बिधम/ Station, Mumbai-400 020. Industries, Shop No. 4. Vs. Rajgor Chambers, 99, Surat Street, Dana Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AELPD0568H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Hanuman Dhanania, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Beraram, DR स…

DCIT (E) 2 (1), Mumbai vs. J.K.Trust Bombay, 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. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…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. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT (E) 2(1) J. K. Trust Bombay, 5th floor, Piramal Ground Floor, New Hind बिधम/ House, Narottam Morarjee Chambers, Lalbaug Vs. Marg, Bellard Estate, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAATT0611L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) J. K. Trust Bombay, DCIT (E) 2(1) 5th floor, Piramal Ground Floor, N…

M/S Ubiquitous Signs Pvt Ltd, Palghar vs. ITO, 15(3)(4), 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. 297/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Ubiquitous Signs Pvt. Ito -15(3)(4), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. M. K. Road, Plot No. 1, Survey No. 70- Mumbai-400 020. B, Bldg. No. 2, Opp- बिधम/ Ipol, Next To Anand Mangal Industrial Estate, Vs. Waliv Phata, Sativali Road, Vasai East, Distt- Palghar, Mahrashtra, Pin-401208 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacu6857C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : None By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Bharti Singh, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05.03.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 24 In 2

…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. 297/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Ubiquitous Signs Pvt. ITO -15(3)(4), 4th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. M. K. Road, Plot No. 1, Survey No. 70- Mumbai-400 020. B, Bldg. No. 2, Opp- बिधम/ IPOL, Next to Anand Mangal Industrial Estate, Vs. Waliv Phata, Sativali Road, Vasai East, Distt- Palghar, Mahrashtra, Pin-401208 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACU6857C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : None by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respon…

DCIT Circle-3, Thane vs. Shri. Surjyamani Krishna Gauda, Thane

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. 1265/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…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. 1265/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Surjyamani Krishna DCIT Cir -3, Gauda, R. No. 2, B Wing, 6th Prop of M/s Sai Electrical floor, Ashar IT Park, Road बिधम/ & Engineers, 01, Hamid No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Vs. Manzil, Shanti Nagar, Estate Thane west, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 Thane(w)-400 604 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAKPG0010C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Beraram, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरस…

ITO 33 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Paras Lalit Vora, 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. 1254/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…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. 1254/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Paras Lalit Vora, ITO-33(2)(5), 702, Bldg No. 2, Modi R. No. 611, 6th floor, C- बिधम/ Park CHSL Iraniwadi, 13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Hemu Kalani Road-3, Vs. BKC, Bandra(east), Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. ABNPV8177D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Beraram, DR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Paras Lalit Vora, AR सुनवाईकी…

Prakashchandra Harilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-25, 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. 1206/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Prakash Chandra Harilal Cit(A)-25, 4Th Floor Tower No. 6 Rly Shah, Flat No. 803, 8Th Floor, B Station Commercial बिधम/ Wing, Adinath Bldg, Complex, Vashi Navi Vs. Mumbai-400 703 Neelkanth Enclave Opp- Shreyas Cinema Lbs Road, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400 086 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aapps6547M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Kumar H. Shah, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Unavekar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.02.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai, Dated 17.01.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2

…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. 1206/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Prakash Chandra Harilal CIT(A)-25, 4th floor Tower No. 6 Rly Shah, Flat No. 803, 8th floor, B station commercial बिधम/ wing, Adinath Bldg, complex, Vashi Navi Vs. Mumbai-400 703 Neelkanth Enclave Opp- Shreyas Cinema LBS Road, Ghatkopar west, Mumbai-400 086 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAPPS6547M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ashwin Kumar H. Shah, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respo…

Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…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…

Shri. Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4(2), Mumbai

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…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- C.Circle, 4(2), Mumbai vs. Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia, Mumbai

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…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 (TDS) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

…2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Page 8 of 9 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…

DCIT (TDS) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

…2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Page 8 of 9 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…

Ims Ag vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

…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- Assessment Year 2013-14 Page 8 of 9 bound…

Jt CIT (OSD) Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

…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…

Raju J Soomaney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…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…

Rak Construction Project Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…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- C.Circle, 4(2), Mumbai vs. Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia, Mumbai

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…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…

Income Tax Officer 26(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mohd. Irsad Mohd. Samiullah Alam, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No.155/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–26(2)(3), Mumbai V/S Mohd. Irsad Mohd. Samiullah Alam D–103, Penat Galaxy, Fire Brigade ……………. Respondent Antop Hill, Mumbai 400 037 Pan –Ahhpa4000G Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Jha Assessee By : Shri Shubham Rathi Date Of Hearing – 25.02.2020 Date Of Order – 13.07.2020

…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…

Ims Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

…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…