Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) ... vs Bank Of India, Mumbai on 12 April, 2019 cites

Srinivas Sashidhar Chaganty, Hyd, ... vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad on 12 July, 2017

2.5 The Hyderabad Tribunal in Srinivas Sasidhar Chaganty Vs. ITO [supra] has taken a view that the period of limitation was to be reckoned from the end of the month in which the order was passed / uploaded on the website. However, we have already noted that in terms of Rule 35 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal Rules), 1963, the order was to be communicated to the respective parties and uploading of the order on the website is not one of the prescribed modes of communication to the parties. Therefore, unless the order is communicated in the prescribed manner, the parties would not come to know the contents of the order and could not chalk out further course of action against the same. Therefore, mere 5 M.A.No.404/Mum/2018 Arising Out of ITA.No.2833/Mum/2015 Bank of India Assessment Year: 2009-10 uploading of the order in the website, in our considered opinion, would not trigger the start of limitation period against the respective parties.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Liladhar T Khushlani vs Commissioner Of ... on 25 January, 2017

2.3 Upon perusal of the judicial pronouncements as cited before us. we find that the Chandigarh Tribunal in Shri Jagomohan Gurbakshish Singh [supra] considering the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Peterplast Synthetics P. Ltd Vs ACIT [2013 86 CCH 0314] & Liladhar T. Kushlani Vs Commissioner of Customs [Tax Appeal No. 915 of 2016 dated 25/01/2017] concluded that the date of dispatch / receipt of the copy of the relevant 4 M.A.No.404/Mum/2018 Arising Out of ITA.No.2833/Mum/2015 Bank of India Assessment Year: 2009-10 order and not the date of passing of the order was to be considered for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - M R Shah - Full Document

Acit, Cirlce-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs Oakton Global Technology Services ... on 30 August, 2017

2.4 The Pune Tribunal in ACIT Vs Indo Global Warehousing & Services P. Ltd. [supra] after considering the above decision as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra Vs DCIT [MA No.38/Pun/2017 dated 04/04/2018] & the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Hita Land Private Limited [MA No. 103/Mum/2017 dated 25/04/2017], dismissed the preliminary issue and proceeded to decide the application on merits.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Dcit Cen Cir 6(4), vs Lavanya Land P.Ltd, on 25 April, 2017

2.4 The Pune Tribunal in ACIT Vs Indo Global Warehousing & Services P. Ltd. [supra] after considering the above decision as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra Vs DCIT [MA No.38/Pun/2017 dated 04/04/2018] & the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Hita Land Private Limited [MA No. 103/Mum/2017 dated 25/04/2017], dismissed the preliminary issue and proceeded to decide the application on merits.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1