Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433High Court2009#457 most cited

What is Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT authority for?

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT · 317 ITR 433 · delayed orders · recall of orders · fresh hearing · Appellate Tribunal guidelines · violation of natural justice · section 253

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 153A Section 253 Section 90(2)Section 6 Section 139(1)Section 18 Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

stay petition trc section 90(2)section 18 violation of natural justice section 90 section 253 search assessment non-resident double taxation salary section 139(1)

Judgments citing Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha Through His Legal Heir Smt Shobha Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4865/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

…consonance with the established judicial precedence. It is submitted that, in G. Shoes Exports v. CIT, MA No. 25/Mum/2017. the Mumbai bench of this Ld. Tribunal, reinforced the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. ACIT, 317 ITR 433 and held that an inordinately delayed order is liable to be recalled and heard afresh. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) passed the Impugned Orders after an unwarranted delay of nearly four to six months after the date of notice/adjournment application and in certain case without issuing any notice at all. Therefore, in light of the establishe…

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha Through His Legal Heir Smt Shobha Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4864/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

…consonance with the established judicial precedence. It is submitted that, in G. Shoes Exports v. CIT, MA No. 25/Mum/2017. the Mumbai bench of this Ld. Tribunal, reinforced the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. ACIT, 317 ITR 433 and held that an inordinately delayed order is liable to be recalled and heard afresh. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) passed the Impugned Orders after an unwarranted delay of nearly four to six months after the date of notice/adjournment application and in certain case without issuing any notice at all. Therefore, in light of the establishe…

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha Through His Legal Heir Smt Shobha Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4863/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

…consonance with the established judicial precedence. It is submitted that, in G. Shoes Exports v. CIT, MA No. 25/Mum/2017. the Mumbai bench of this Ld. Tribunal, reinforced the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. ACIT, 317 ITR 433 and held that an inordinately delayed order is liable to be recalled and heard afresh. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) passed the Impugned Orders after an unwarranted delay of nearly four to six months after the date of notice/adjournment application and in certain case without issuing any notice at all. Therefore, in light of the establishe…

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha Through His Legal Heir Smt Shobha Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4862/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

…consonance with the established judicial precedence. It is submitted that, in G. Shoes Exports v. CIT, MA No. 25/Mum/2017. the Mumbai bench of this Ld. Tribunal, reinforced the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. ACIT, 317 ITR 433 and held that an inordinately delayed order is liable to be recalled and heard afresh. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) passed the Impugned Orders after an unwarranted delay of nearly four to six months after the date of notice/adjournment application and in certain case without issuing any notice at all. Therefore, in light of the establishe…

Bishnu Krishna Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 4861/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

…consonance with the established judicial precedence. It is submitted that, in G. Shoes Exports v. CIT, MA No. 25/Mum/2017. the Mumbai bench of this Ld. Tribunal, reinforced the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. ACIT, 317 ITR 433 and held that an inordinately delayed order is liable to be recalled and heard afresh. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) passed the Impugned Orders after an unwarranted delay of nearly four to six months after the date of notice/adjournment application and in certain case without issuing any notice at all. Therefore, in light of the establishe…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…the following decisions disapproved the approach of the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the lower authorities when all evidences and documents were available on records:  CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd.: 223 Taxman 157 (Guj.)  Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant vs. ACIT: 317 ITR 433 (Bom.)  Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd vs. ITAT: 368 ITR 487 (Bom.)  Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. vs. ACIT: 357 ITR 597 (Mad)  CIT vs. GEC Alsthom India Ltd: 361 ITR 304 (Mad.) It is submitted that considering all the relevant documentary evidence related to the issue are on record, the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to decide the aforesa…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…the following decisions disapproved the approach of the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the lower authorities when all evidences and documents were available on records:  CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd.: 223 Taxman 157 (Guj.)  Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant vs. ACIT: 317 ITR 433 (Bom.)  Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd vs. ITAT: 368 ITR 487 (Bom.)  Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. vs. ACIT: 357 ITR 597 (Mad)  CIT vs. GEC Alsthom India Ltd: 361 ITR 304 (Mad.) It is submitted that considering all the relevant documentary evidence related to the issue are on record, the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to decide the aforesa…

Shri Premprakashishprakash Sharma, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

ITA 19/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

…already available on record and therefore, it is prayed that the said issue may please be adjudicated by Hon’ble ITAT without remitting the matter back to CIT(A) in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. [368 ITR 487]. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the levy of penalty u/s 270A is also not justified on merits and hence, the same may please be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 4 I.T.A.Nos. 18 & 19/PUN./2024 3. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assi…

Shri Premprakashishprakash Sharma, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-2(1), Pune

ITA 18/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

…already available on record and therefore, it is prayed that the said issue may please be adjudicated by Hon’ble ITAT without remitting the matter back to CIT(A) in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. [368 ITR 487]. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the levy of penalty u/s 270A is also not justified on merits and hence, the same may please be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 4 I.T.A.Nos. 18 & 19/PUN./2024 3. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assi…

Shri Vijay Liladhar Mohmaya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…n. Further, there is no basis whatsoever provided in the order dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observations of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant vs ACIT; [2009] 317 ITR 433 (Bombay): “10. The basic rule of natural justice requires recording of reasons in support of the order. The order has to be self-explanatory and should not keep the higher court guessing for reasons. Reasons provide live link between conclusion and evidence that vital link is a safe guard against arbitrariness, passion and prejudice. Reason is a…

Balaji Electrical Insulators Pvt. Ltd (Since Merge With Golf Ceramics Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1539/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P Jain, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the Benches ITA Nos.1538&1539/Ahd/2018…

Balaji Electrical Insulators Pvt. Ltd (Since Merge With Golf Ceramics Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1538/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P Jain, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the Benches ITA Nos.1538&1539/Ahd/2018…

Shree Naman Developers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2796/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Shree Naman बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-5(4) Developers Limited (Now Mumbai. Vs. Known As M/S. Shree Namn Developers Pvt. Ltd.) 315, Parekh Market, 39, J.S.S, Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn2568H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Rahul Raman (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

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

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Taj Iron and Steel Works Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4382/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4382/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit 4(3)(1) M/S. Taj Iron & Steel Works R. No.649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, Carmelos Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400020. Pathak Wadi, L. T. Road, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5807H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi / Shubham Rathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi / Shubham RathiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…

Enigma Construction Pvt. Ltd.(Now Merged With Keystone Rlators Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5242/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Enigma Construction Pvt. Dcit Central Circle-2(4) Ltd. (Now Merged With Income Tax Office, Old Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd,) Cgo Building, Mumbai. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Junction W.E. Highway, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9090J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. Justin सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…

Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad Sah, Mumbai vs. Adcit 23(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2460/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2460/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad बिधम/ Adcit 23(3) 104, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Sah Vs. 22 A Band Stand Society Tardeo Rd, Mumbai-400007. 197-C, Kane Rd Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps5412H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (Dr) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/ 08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (DR)For Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…

Malabar Hill Club Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 755/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.755/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Malabar Hill Club Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(2)(2) B. G. Kher Marg, Malabar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Vs. Hill, Mumbai-400006. Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 5(2)(3) बिधम/ Malabar Hill Club Ltd. Room No.566, 5Th Floor, B. G. Kher Marg, Malabar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Hill, Mumbai-400006. 400020.. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw3868M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistry/ Niraj Sheth Revenue By: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. Ita. No.755/M/2017

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry/ Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Sr. AR)

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…

Jamshed J. Appoo, Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6594/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6594/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Jamshed J. Appoo Acit-3(1)(2) Room No.607, 6Th Floor, 5/B, Maria Apratment Vs. Apratment, 78, Palihili, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra (W), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafpa4769B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh P. Shah (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -08, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…

Unitech Marketing Services, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle -17 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5254/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Unitech Marketing Services, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 511, Plot No. 15, Raheja Plaza, Circle-17(3), Co. Soc. Ltd. Veera Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Vs. Shah Industrial Estate, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri V. P. Kothari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Jayvik Foresight Innovations and Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3321/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3321/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Dcit, Cir, 6(3)(1) M/S. Jayvik Foresight R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Innovations & Solutions Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Pvt. Ltd. Road, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Innova, Ganpatro Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj4085H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Shishir Dhamija (Dr) Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…