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 367,154 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

Riddhi Siddhi Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 6(4), Mumbai

ITA 646/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanita Nos.646-647/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Riddhi Siddhi Developers P. Ltd Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 45, Maker Chambers-Iii, Central Circle – 6(4), Room No. 1925, Vs. 223 Nariman Point, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point , Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aaacr0426N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Hema KatariaFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swami, CIT D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…Riddhi Siddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai 1 ITA Nos. 646-647/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2013-14 & A.Y 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA Nos.646-647/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Riddhi Siddhi Developers P. Ltd Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 45, Maker Chambers-III, Central Circle – 6(4), Room No. 1925, Vs. 223 Nariman Point, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point , Mumbai – 400 021 PAN – AAACR0426N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appella…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 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 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 directed "while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which…

M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3865/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

Gtl Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 588/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 588/Mum/2019 & Cross Objection No. 192/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Ltu-2, Gtl Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World 412, Janmabhoomi बिधम/ Trade Centre, Mumbai. Chambers, 29, Walchand Vs. Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacg3742L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 937/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Ltu-2, Gtl Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World 412, Janmabhoomi बिधम/ Trade Centre, Mumbai. Chambers, 29, Walchand Vs. Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Simi Samant, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.01.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Simi Samant, DR

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 588/Mum/2019 & Cross Objection No. 192/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ACIT, LTU-2, GTL Ltd. 29th floor, Centre-1, World 412, Janmabhoomi बिधम/ Trade Centre, Mumbai. Chambers, 29, Walchand Vs. Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACG3742L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 937/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ACIT, LTU-2, GTL Ltd. 29th floor, Centre-1, World 412,…

Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6010/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriSubodhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…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…

Linklaters LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6846/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 6846/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2015-16) Linklaters Llp, C/O.Delloite Haskins 7 Sells Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elphinstone Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West) Mumbai – 400013 Pan: Aabcl 5182G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) 3(1)(2), Room No.1603, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur Sr. Advocate with Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh

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…

Jhp Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6490/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 6490/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) Jhp Securities Pvt. Ltd. 201,Dev Neo Vikram, ‘B’ Wing, 2Nd Floor, Sahakar Nagar Chs, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 Pan: Aaacj2847H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1) Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: S/ Shri V.G.Ginde/Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha

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…

Uni Tex Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5923/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 5923/मुं/2018 ("न.2015-16 व) Unitex Products Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacu0760G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3)(4), Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: Shri M.M.GolwalaFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha

…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…

Jayshree Metal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5922/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 5922/मुं/2018 ("न. व.2011-12) M/S.Jayshree Metal, 82, Ganesh Bhavan, Adeshir Dady Street, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Aabfj3949E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito – 19(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha

Section 143(3)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 5 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 w…

M/S.Hp Associates, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5929/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 5929/मुं/2018 ("न. व.2011-12) M/S. H.P.Associates, 120, Laxmikunj, Mahant Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 056. Pan:Aaffh3495K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito – 25(3)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha

Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under 7 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…

Global Offshorfe Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7321/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Husain Ansari

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…

Mr. Shamy E. Major, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cirl.17(3), Mumbai

ITA 965/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmr. Sammy E. Major Acit, Circle 17(3) 2Nd Floor, Queens Chamber, Room No. 137, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 89, Maharshi Karve Road, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Marine Lines, Mumbai. Pan – Aahpm0177H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravindra Poojary, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

…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…

Span Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2), Thane

ITA 6399/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Span Realtors The Income Tax Officer 2(2), B 001 - 002, Gopal Darshan, Room No. 26, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Inderlok Phase Ii, Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Vs. Bhayander (East), Thane, Midc, Thane, Maharashtra – 401 105 Maharashtra – 401 101 Pan – Abrfs7795J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rashmikant Modi & Ketki Rajeshirke, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…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…

Haresh Natvarlal Sanghvi, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodharesh Natvarlal Sanghavi Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Nikunj House, Manav Mandir A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Vs. Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. Thane(W) – 400 604 Pan –Afcps7828F Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Haresh Natvarlal Sanghavi A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Nikunj House, Manav Mandir Vs. Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Thane(W) – 400 604 Thane. Pan –Afcps7828F Assessee By: S/Shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.Rs Revenue By: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 32Section 57

…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…

Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT 2, Mumbai

ITA 2848/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -2, 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan –Aaccs1776N M/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2(3)(2), 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 552, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan – Aaccs1776N Appellant By: S/Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.Rs Respondent By: S/Shri Salil Mishra, Cit D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.RsFor Respondent: S/shri Salil Mishra, CIT D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…Shree Bal Properties and Finance P. Ltd. Vs ACIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai 1 A.Y 2014-15 – ITA No. 345/Mum/2018 Shree Bal Properties and Finance P. Ltd. Vs ACIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai A.Y 2014-15 – ITA No. 345/Mum/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member M/s Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax -2, 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 344, 3rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. PAN –AACCS1776N M/s Shree Bal Properties & Fin…

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 293/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit – 9(3)(2), Mumbai, M/S Godfrey Phillips India Ltd 418, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Macropolo Building; Ground Floor Maharishi Karve Marg Next To Kala Chowky Post Office Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 033. Pan – Aabcg4768K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod Kumar D.RFor Respondent: S/shri Manish V. Shah & Parveen Jain A.R‘s

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69B

…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…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vrisa Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4217/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodc.O No. 174/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: S/shri V. Vinod Kumar, Udol Raj Singh, D.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kishore B. Phadke, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…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…

Income Tax Officer, S.K.Ward-2, Himatnagar vs. Shri Dushyant Manilal Pandya, Sabarkantha

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1979/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1979/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito Shri Dushyant Manilal बनाम/ Pandya Sabarkantha Ward-2, Vs. 1, Arvali Society, Nr. Himatnagar, Dist: Paras Kerosin Pump, Sabarkantha-383001 Valasana Road, At-Idar, Dist. Sabarkantha- 383230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ako Pp5 443 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: 02/03/2020

Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…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…

M/S. Anil Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 377/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 377/Ahd/2011 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 M/S Anil Dye Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T.(Osd) 508, Ship Building, Cg Road, Navrangpura, Vs. Range-1, Ahmedabad-380009. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabca7881K

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhuyt Trivedi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 48

…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…

Uhde India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 1904/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodthyssenkrupp Indutrial Solutions (India) Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax 10(3); Private Limited (Formerly Known As Uhde India Mumbai. Vs. Private Limited); Uhde House, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 0883 Pan – Aaacu1446H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sshri Niraj Sheth, Darshti Naik & HarmuzdFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chandra, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…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…