1. Auto Centre v. State of Uttar Pradesh

278 ITR 291High Court2005#8957 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 147Section 10(23C)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 1961Section 250(6)

Issues it is cited on

speaking ordercondonation of delaysection 271(1)(c)section 25section 147section 250prescribednfacinterestpersonindia

Judgments citing 1. Auto Centre v. State of Uttar Pradesh

THAKORBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MORI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…tence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. 2. 278 ITR 291 (ALL) AUTO CENTRE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS "In matters of condonation of delay a pragmatic view should be taken and there should be a liberal approach. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are no…

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…t on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. We further place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Auto Centre vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 278 ITR 291 (All) "In the matter of condonation of delay a pragmatic view should be taken and there should be a liberal approach. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicaeut sit finislitium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rat…

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…t on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. We further place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Auto Centre vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 278 ITR 291 (All) "In the matter of condonation of delay a pragmatic view should be taken and there should be a liberal approach. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicaeut sit finislitium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rat…

SUDHIR YADAV,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(5), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 82/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 147

…y is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Auto Centre vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2005) 278 ITR 291 (All.) held as under: We are of the opinion that the approach of the Tribunal is pedantic, while in matters of condonation of delay it should be pragmatic and liberal. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest republicaeut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are n…

JAGVIR SINGH KUNTAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2), MATHURA

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

ITA 68/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

…He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and 3 | P a g e the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Auto Centre vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) 278 ITR 291 (All). Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the delay of three days be condoned. Ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection to the condonation of delay. After considering the contentions of both the parties, I am of the view that the delay of 3 days needs to be condoned in the instant case. If substantial justice and technical considerations are…

ANISH METALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5474/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon‟Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 749), Collector, Land Acquisition Vrs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Bal Krishanan Vrs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, Ram Nath Sao vrs. Gobardhan Sao (AIR 2002 SC 1201), Auto Centre Vrs. State of UP & Ors (2005) 278 ITR 291 (all), Areva T & D India Ltd vrs. JCIT (2006) 287 ITR 555 (Mad), Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vrs. Ito (2013) 29 taxmann.com 389 (Guj) and Gujrat Electricity Board Vrs. DCIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 340(Guj), etc. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also rejoinder dated 21.01.19 containing judgments…

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2624/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazm/S. Rao Computers Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 118, Neil Rao Towers, Road No. 03, Epip 1St Phase, Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560066. Pan: Aaacr8427R . Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Vani. H, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Vani. H, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…in judicial pronouncements in support of the assessee’s claim that the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned by the CIT(A). These decisions are – 1) N Balakrishnan Vs. M Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 2) Auto Centre Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 278 ITR 291 (All) 3) Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. ACIT in the decision of Mumbai ‘A’ Bench in ITA No.6240/Mum 2007 order dated 23/3/2010. 7. The ld DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 2624/B/17 3 8. We have considered the rival submissions. The Assessee derives income from letting of constructing and letting out building on rent to IT and ITES compani…

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

…M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 3(1) Indore /I.T.A. No. 713/Ind/2016/AY09-10 Page 1 of 25 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE च""मोहन गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Platinum Horazine ACIT 3(1) Indore Pvt. Ltd. v. E-50, MIG Colony Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN: AAECP 4915 A अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant by Shri Subhash Chand Jain C.A. ""…

SHRI RITESH SHOKEEN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6220/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 6220/Del./2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6220/Del./2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ritesh Shokeen Vs. ITO H.No. 1, Vill. Nilothi, Ward-25(4), Nangloi, New Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (PAN: BHMPS2299P) Assessee by: Sh. K. Sampat, Advocate Revenue by: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08/03/2017 Date of pronouncement 09/03/2017 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi vide order dated 27.8…

M/S PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1197/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Section 156

…315 (Mum.) 3. M/s. Mahalakshmi Real Estates vs. Income-tax Officer (ITA No. 991/Hyd/2009) 4. Wellworth Shares and stock broking Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 991/Hyd/2009) 5. Dinesh Nagindas vs. CIT (2005) 273 ITR 229 6. Auto Centre vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005) 278 ITR 291 (All) 7. Parijat Chemicals P. Ltd. vs. ITO (1995) 216 ITR 221 (MP) 8. Smt. Rani Aggarwal vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 22 9. Prem Chand Bansal vs. ITO (1999) 237 ITR 65 (del) 10. R. Seshmal vs. ITO 237 ITR 185 (Mad.) 11. Prima Paper & Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 221 Taxmann 209 (Bom) 12. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Sing & Ors. Ci…

M/s. PLL-SUNCON Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the delay of one year

ITTA/374/2011HC Telangana29 Nov 2011
Section 142(1)Section 148

…TAXAPJ/3722/0114 1/8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 372 of 2011 With TAX APPEAL No. 373 of 2011 To TAX APPEAL No. 374 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of Indi…

M/s. PLL-PCL Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the delay of one year

ITTA/372/2011HC Telangana15 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 142(1)Section 148

…TAXAPJ/3722/0114 1/8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 372 of 2011 With TAX APPEAL No. 373 of 2011 To TAX APPEAL No. 374 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of Indi…

1. Auto Centre v. State of Uttar Pradesh (278 ITR 291) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax