MSK Project (India) JV Ltd. v. ACIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT 1991 TaxPub(DT) 1526 (SC)
REFERRED Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1279 (SC)
REFERRED Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1020 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu 1964 TaxPub(DT) 0323 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 619 (Ahd-Trib) IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. & T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, J.M. MSK Project (India) JV Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 498/Ahd/2019 31 January, 2024 Assessee by: S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Parin Shah, AR Revenue by: Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR ORDER *Annapurna Gupta, A.M.* Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)' for short) dated 9-8-2012 passed under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:-- 1. Learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts to hold that no appeal lies against order giving effect to findings of commissioner in order passed under section 263 of the Act. 2. Learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts dismissing appeal challenging addition of Rs. 9,90,00,052 whereas Supreme Court awarding Rs. 26.34 lakhs only means that the appellant was not required to account income as per arbitral award on the mercantile basis. 3. Learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts confirming order giving effect without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to present documentary evidence that no such income accrued to the appellant. 4. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act is not justified. 3. The appeal is stated to be barred by limitation by 2359 days. The learned Commissioner (Appeals)s order, against which the present appeal has been filed before us, was passed on 9-8-2012. The assesse was required to file appeal before us within 60 days, i.e. by 8-10-2012. However, the present appeal has been filed before us on 26-3-2019, resulting in delay in filing of the appeal by 2359 days. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 619 (Ahd-Trib)

IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD

ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. & T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, J.M.

MSK Project (India) JV Ltd. v. ACIT

ITA No. 498/Ahd/2019

31 January, 2024

Assessee by: S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Parin Shah, AR

Revenue by: Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

ORDER

Annapurna Gupta, A.M.

Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)' for short) dated 9-8-2012 passed under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:--

1. Learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts to hold that no appeal lies against order giving effect to findings of commissioner in order passed under section 263 of the Act.

2. Learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts dismissing appeal challenging addition of Rs. 9,90,00,052 whereas Supreme Court awarding Rs. 26.34 lakhs only means that the appellant was not required to account income as per arbitral award on the mercantile basis.

3. Learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts confirming order giving effect without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to present documentary evidence that no such income accrued to the appellant.

4. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act is not justified.

3. The appeal is stated to be barred by limitation by 2359 days. The learned Commissioner (Appeals)s order, against which the present appeal has been filed before us, was passed on 9-8-2012. The assesse was required to file appeal before us within 60 days, i.e. by 8-10-2012. However, the present appeal has been filed before us on 26-3-2019, resulting in delay in filing of the appeal by 2359 days.