How many judgments cite Otters Club v. DIT?

202 judgments on BharatTax cite Otters Club v. DIT (392 ITR 244), spanning 2020 to 2020.

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 143 india section 14 section 143(3)

Judgments citing Otters Club v. DIT

ACIT 24 (2), Mumbai vs. Juneja Global, Mumbai

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

ITA 5502/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5502/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-24(2) बिधम/ M/S. Juneja Global A/36, Midc, 2Nd Street, Income Tax-24(2), Room Vs. No. 413, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- 400093. 400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafj1087C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bipin B. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -36, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Bipin B. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh

Section 143(1)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 timebound by this Court, the period for which t…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…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 Childrens Aid Society Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the terms indicated above

ITA 366/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…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…

Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) I-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1010/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jamsetji Tata Trust बिधम/ Acit (E) 1-1 Bombay House, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Street, Mumbai-400001. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatj0095N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri Shishir Dhamija (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…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…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…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…

Federal Mogul Anand Bearnig India Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ITO 2(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 463/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.463/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Federal Mogul Anand बिधम/ Dcit, Ito Ward 2(1)(3) Bearing India Ltd. (Formerly Mumbai. Vs. Known As Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd.) Paras Twin Towers, 10Th Floor, Tower B, Golf Course Road Sector-54, Gurgaon- 122002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca3784Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Bhavya Goyal Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2020 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(5) 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 20.10.2015 Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer A.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…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 16 A.Y.2011-12 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 pe…

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6104/MUM/2018[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Tata Steel Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bombay House Income Tax-2(3) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor 24, Homi Mody Street Fort, Room No.522, Mumbai-400001 Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2803M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244

…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…

Value Line Equities P. Ltd ( Formerly Knwoan As M.S Sb & T Securities P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4605/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR byFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271

…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. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT Cir 4(2), M/s Valueline Equities AayakarBhavan, M. K. Private Limited Road, Mumbai-400 020 405, Appejay House 4th बिधम/ floor, 130 Mumbai, Vs. Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACS6170Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Bharati Singh, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05.03.2020 Date of Hearing घ…

Kewal Kiran Enterparises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1376/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1376/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1376/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT-31(2), M/s Kewal Kiran R. No. 107, 1st floor, C-13, Enterprises, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बिधम/ B-101 Synthofine Estate BKC, Mumbai- 400 051 Opp. Virwani Ind. Estate, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAAFK2525L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Ronak G. Doshi & Ms. Ayushi Modani, ARs by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Drop Singh Meena, DR सु…

Hdfc Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6173/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Hdfc Bank House, Income Tax – 2(3) Room No.615, 6Th Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 013 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2702H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assistant Commissioner Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Of Income Tax – 2(3) Hdfc Bank House, Room No.615, 6Th Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Mumbai - Mumbai – 400 013 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2702H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 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…

Patel L&T Consortium, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5285/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5285 & 5286/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri VipulFor Respondent: ShriRahul Raman, DR

Section 143Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5285 & 5286/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s Patel L & T ACIT 17(2), Consortium Mumbai, बिधम/ Pin- L& T House, N. M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5352 & 5353/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s Patel L & T ACIT 17(2), Consortium Mumbai, बिधम/ L& T House, N. M. Marg, Pin- Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400 001…

ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cpec Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5292/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit 6(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Cpec Limited 5Th Room No.504/563-C, 11,211/219, P.D.Mello Road Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K.Road, Churchgate Maharashtra Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2089A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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…

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kumar Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 605/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit 1(2)(1), M/S Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakarbhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, Hazarimalsomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabck8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : &

For Appellant: ShriDrop Singh MeenaFor Respondent: ShriRajanVora/Shri

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT 1(2)(1), M/s Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ AayakarBhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, HazarimalSomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCK8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 14/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s Kumar Properties Pvt. DCIT 1(2)(1), Ltd. R. No. 535, बिधम/ 21, Woundboy Road,…

Priti Potphode, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Palghar

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

ITA 4129/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Smt. Priti Potphode Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-3 Umber Pada, Wadare Aayakar Bhavan Saphale Bidco Road Palghar – 401 102 Palghar – 401 404 Pan/Gir No.Ajhpm9841M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ragmatic approach at a 7 Smt. Priti Potphode. 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…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM& SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. ACIT 4(2)(1) Ltd. 6th floor, Room no. 642, बिधम/ 308/382, 1st floor, NNS Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Building, Chira Bazar, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Kalabadevi, Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCV5319C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi,DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.02.2020 Date of Hea…

Kishore Shivram Shenoy, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Thane

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

ITA 6920/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6920/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-14)

For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6920/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-14) ITO Ward 4(2) Shri Kishore Shivaram Ashar IT Park, 6th floor, A- Shenoy, wing, Room no. 4, Road बिधम/ 03, Shalom Heritage, No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Opp-RBK School, Phase- Vs. Estate, Thane – 400 604 6, Indralo, Bhayandar (east), Thane - 401105. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AVMPS7372Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant None : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Drop Singh Meena, DR…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-25(3), Mumbai vs. Vidhi Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 4848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4848/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Vidhi Enterprises, Acit 25(3), R. No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, बिधम/ 504, Parshwakunj, Malviya Road Vile Parle Pratykashkarbhavan, Vs. (East), Mumbai-400 057 Bandrakurla Complex (East) Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aagfv4334C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs Samatha Mullamudi, Dr प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Vijay Mehta, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17.02.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountantmember): The Present Appeals Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai Dated 05.04.2017 For Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Mrs SamathaFor Respondent: Vijay Mehta, AR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Power Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 518/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.518/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit 5(2)(1) बिधम/ Jsw Power Trading Co. Ltd. R. No.525, Aayakar 5A, Jindal Mansion, Vs. Bhawan, M.K. Rd, Mumbai- Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai- 400020. 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj5740L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Gaurav Kabra (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2