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

Issues it is cited on

stay petitiontrcsection 90(2)section 18violation of natural justicesection 90section 253search assessmentnon-residentdouble taxationsalarysection 139(1)

Judgments citing Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

R.N. Sahoo & Others, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 335/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-2015 R.N.Sahoo & Others, 122A, Station Vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Square, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAEFR 2753 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.K.Sheth, AR Revenue by : Shri J.K.Lenka, DR Date of Hearing : 21/02/ 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)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 24.9.2019 for the assessment yea…

Vodafone Idea Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, TDS, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 306/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Soumya Singh & Nirod PatadeFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 201(3)

…f 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: P a g e 22 | 26 ITA Nos.306 t o 3 09 /C TK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ears : 20 09- 201 0 to 20 12- 13 “ 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…

Brig. Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 230/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

…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…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 393/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 80P(2)

…f 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…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 392/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 80P(2)

…f 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…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

…ncluding the 48 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…

Brig.Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 30/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

…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…

Shri Samatbhai Malabhai Parmar, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

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

ITA 142/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Samatbhai Malabhai Vs. Ito Parmar, Prop. Of Jai Momai Ward-3(1), Transport, At Singach, Tal. Jamnagar Lalpur, Dist. Jamnagar [Pan No. Amtpp7987N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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…

Rameshwar Pipe Industries, Kotharia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 340/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royrameshwar Pipe Industries Vs. Ito Vardhman Industrial Area, Ward-3(1)(2), Survey No. 259/2, Plot No. 13, Rajkot Behind Kotharia Solvent, Kotharia [Pan No. Aajfr8612E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rameshwar Pipe Industries Vs. ITO Vardhman Industrial Area, Ward-3(1)(2), Survey No. 259/2, Plot No. 13, Rajkot Behind Kotharia Solvent, Kotharia [PAN No. AAJFR8612E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, AR Respondent by : Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 27.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement 02.06.2020 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Commis…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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)

…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 Assessment year: 2015…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6158/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Dy.CIT(TDS)-2(3) M/s. Vodafone India Ltd. बनाम/ Mumbai Peninsula Corporate Park, Vs. Smt. K. G. Mittal GanpatraoKadamMarg, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Lower Parel, Mumbai Room No. 718, Charni 400013 Road (West), Mumbai – 400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACH5332B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Mrs. JaantaZimikVashai, CITDR अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : ShriKetanVe…

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

…lt of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in 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 the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their L (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, ordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay therefor…

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

…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 Lionbridg…

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

…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…

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

ITA 278/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2014-15
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

…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…