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

Bharat Narshibhai Patel, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 516/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 271CSection 40Section 40(8)

…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 Rudraksh Detergent & Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 312/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…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…

Shri Dilipbhai U.Udani, Rajkot, Jamnagar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 251/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.N. Maurya, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 16ASection 23Section 24Section 263Section 34ASection 35Section 37Section 45Section 55A

…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…

Shri Raj Kishorbhai Yadav, Jamnagar vs. The ITO-Ward, 3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 230/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suhas Mistry, Sr. DR

…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. Decent Metal Products, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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, ITA No. 139/Rjt/19 [Decent Metal Products vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 6 - held that directed “while calculating the time for…

Shri Shantilal Maltiport Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar vs. The Asst. Commr. of Income Tax & the ITO-TDS-Circle-1, Jamnagar

In the result, ITA No.275/Rjt/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes whereas

ITA 275/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Varia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154

…a disaster, notified under the ITA Nos. 275 & 403/RJT/2018 8 . A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 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 Phoenix Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 95/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 Om Kirti Construction Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen. Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.N Maury, CIT/ D.R
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

…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(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd., Gondal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 414/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Mourya, CIT.D.R
Section 131

…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. Gupta Global Exim Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 214/RJT/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 4696/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…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…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 2710/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…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…

Gateway Terminals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Panvel Circle, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 300/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka- Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabhan- Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…disaster, notified under the 19 Gateway Terminals Private Ltd. Assessment Year-2012-13 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…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 4697/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…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…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 2709/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…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…

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd.(Diversey India Pvt Ltd Merged With Sealed Air (India) Pvt Ltd and Later Sealed Air (India) Pvt Ltd'S Name Chamged to Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7292/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)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 (TDS) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6158/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: ShriKetanVed, A.R., Sr. D.R
Section 194JSection 201(1)

…e 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…

ACIT- Circle-20(3), Mumbai vs. Vastupal Laherchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6133/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 6133/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-20(3), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….Appellant 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012. Vs. Shri Vastupal Laherchand Jain……………….......…..…………………....………………..……..Respondent 41, 1St Floor, Mehta Chambers, 4Th Lane, Kamathipura, Mumbai – 400 012. [Pan: Aaepj 5465 G] Appearances By: Shri Sanatha Mullamudi, D/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri A.N. Shah, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 27, 2020 Order Per Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…anagement Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the recedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon’ble Bombay High 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 Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a Court did not approve an order being passed by t…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 610/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, Shreyash ShahFor Respondent: 08.01.2020
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…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…

Tata Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 299/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought t
Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 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…