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.

How many judgments cite Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT?

202 judgments on BharatTax cite Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT (317 ITR 433), spanning 2020 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 153A, Section 253, Section 90(2), Section 6, Section 139(1).

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT (317 ITR 433)

ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Nextgen Constructions P.Tld (Changed to M/S Aetius Construction P. Ltd Which Is Further Amalgamated With M/S Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 3593/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.Daniel-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-CIT- DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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…

Megha Property Developers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Megha Property Vs. Ito-4(2)(4) Room No.647, 6Th Floor Developers Ltd., 701A, Niranjan Aayakar Bhavan 99, Marine Drive M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 002 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaffm5593B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 73

…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 14 M/s. Megha Property Developers Ltd. 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…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…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…

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

…of concluding the 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 High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: “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 behalf. We h…

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)

…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 v. 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…

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

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)

…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 v. 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…

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)

…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…

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

…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…

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)

…e 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…

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)

…of concluding the 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 High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: “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 behalf. We h…

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)

…rily‖ has ITA No.6399/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 10 M/s Span Realtors Vs. The Income Tax Officer 2(2) been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon‘ble High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: ―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 behalf. We h…

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

…of concluding the 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 High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: Haresh Natvarlal Sanghvi vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Mumbai – ITA 2043/Mum/2017 – A.Y 2012-13 20 ACIT, Circle 4, Mumbai Vs. Haresh Natvarlal Sanghvi- ITA 1915/Mum/2017 – A.Y 2012-13 ―We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines…

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

…d. Vs ACIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai 27 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 of directions of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: “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 behalf. We h…

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

…of concluding the 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 High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: ―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 behalf. We ho…

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)

…of concluding the 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 High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: ―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 behalf. We ho…

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

…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…

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

…of concluding the 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 High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: ―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 behalf. We ho…

Arunachal Properties Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2708/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2009-10 Arunachal Properties Pvt Ltd The Income Tax Officer House No 11 Road No 63 Vs Ward -3 (2) West Punjabhi Baug New Delhi New Delhi 110026 Pan : Aaaca0751F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…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 v. 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…

S.K. Mineral Handling Pvt. Ltd., Keonjhar vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 S.K.Minerals Handling Pvt Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Station Road, barbil, Keonjhar Ainthapali, Sambalpur PAN/GIR No.AAICS 5650 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 25 /02/ 2020 Date of Pronouncement : 5 /06/2020 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Sambalpur dated 26.8.…

Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters (P) Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 336/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of concluding the 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 High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant vs ACIT (2009) 319 ITR 433 (Bom), wherein, it was, inter alia, observed as under: “ 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 behalf. W…

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT