“miscellaneous application”

Disma Golden Jubilee Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

This appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2022 on merit, however, lateron by deciding Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 118/Mum/2023 filed by the Revenue/Department, wherein it was claimed that the Hon’ble ITAT had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal filed

ACIT -14 (2), Mumbai vs. Redwood I.T. Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Tribunal did not examine the above said contention, the assessee filed a miscellaneous petition, which was numbered as M A No.213/Mum/2022. The above said miscellaneous application was disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 20-02-2023, wherein the Tribunal recalled its earlier order for the purpose

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10. The Ld.AR further brought to our attention that the assessee raised a Miscellaneous Application with regard to the finding given by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the order 17.02.2021 and that the Hon’ble Tribunal passed the order

Antony Commercial Vehicle Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed despite issuance of notice. We further find that even during the hearing of the aforesaid miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Act no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, in view of the above

Access Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.600/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Office No. 15, Floor- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mezzanine, Laxmidas Mumbai-400020. Khimji Market, 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vitthalwadi, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0551C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2366 Days [I.E, Six (6) Years & 05 Months] In Filing Of This Appeal Before This Tribunal. 3. First Of All Will Deal With The Application Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Manish Panwar For Condonation Of In-Ordinate Delay. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Gold Bullion & Bars. For The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income After Declaring Loss Of Rs. (8,932)/- On 27.09.2012. The Return Of Income Was Initially Processed U/S.143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny.

attended tax matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant had obtained various documents, and that these circumstances and his ill health caused delay in filing Miscellaneous Application against ex parte order passed on account of non-prosecution, keeping in view of rule 24 of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 1963, delay ... filing Miscellaneous Application was to be condoned. 3.6 In the case of Kashmir Road Lines v. DCIT 2021] 123 taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar - Trib.), ITAT held that where assessee claimed condonation of delay of 124 days in filing appeal due to reason that appeal papers were prepared and handed over

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10. The Ld.AR further brought to our attention that the assessee raised a Miscellaneous Application with regard to the finding given by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the order 17.02.2021 and that the Hon’ble Tribunal passed the order

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10. The Ld.AR further brought to our attention that the assessee raised a Miscellaneous Application with regard to the finding given by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the order 17.02.2021 and that the Hon’ble Tribunal passed the order