AIR 1917-PC-156 (ii) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266 (iii) Baldeo Lal Roy v. State of Bihar

11 STC 104High Court1960#8867 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

principal officersection 200asection 234esection 234section 23condonation of delayprescribednfacindiasection 14section 143(3)business

Judgments citing AIR 1917-PC-156 (ii) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266 (iii) Baldeo Lal Roy v. State of Bihar

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

…lant are not satisfactory for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is evident that appellant had no cause for not filing the appeal in time. 7.7 In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd (Gujarat 87 STC 266), Baldeo Lai Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M Loganathan Vs CIT (Madras 302 ITR 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. 7.8 In the case of Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya…

KOLANGATH MUHAMMED ASLAM,TANUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1005/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskolangath Muhammed Aslam The Income Tax Officer Kolangath House Ward - 1 & Tps, Tirur Pariyapuram P.O. Vs. Tanur 676302 [Pan:Ccypk9063K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hamid Hussain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5

…nlal & Chottelat v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; H.H. Brij Inder Singh vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917-PC-156; Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. v. CST, 87 STC 266 (Guj);M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak, AIR 1938 Nag. 156; Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar [1960] 11 STC 104 (Pat); Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT[2010] 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), to cite some. 3.3 The requirement of sufficient cause u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is, in our view, not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case, for us to grant condonation. The appeal is accordingly not admitted. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed…

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 55/COCH/2023[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…/2023 New Higher Secondary School vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) SC 361; H.H. Brij Inder Singh vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917-PC-156;Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. v. CST, 87 STC 266 (Guj);M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak, AIR 1938 Nag. 156; Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar[1960] 11 STC 104 (Pat); Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT[2010] 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), to cite some. In each case, it stands clarified that the matter of condonation of delay is essentially a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the anvil of due diligence and bona fides in prosecuting it’s affairs being shown by the applicant. 4.2 In a spate of Miscellaneous P…

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/COCH/2023[2015-16 (Qurt-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…/2023 New Higher Secondary School vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) SC 361; H.H. Brij Inder Singh vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917-PC-156;Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. v. CST, 87 STC 266 (Guj);M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak, AIR 1938 Nag. 156; Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar[1960] 11 STC 104 (Pat); Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT[2010] 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), to cite some. In each case, it stands clarified that the matter of condonation of delay is essentially a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the anvil of due diligence and bona fides in prosecuting it’s affairs being shown by the applicant. 4.2 In a spate of Miscellaneous P…

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2023[2015-16 QTR 2]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…/2023 New Higher Secondary School vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) SC 361; H.H. Brij Inder Singh vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917-PC-156;Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. v. CST, 87 STC 266 (Guj);M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak, AIR 1938 Nag. 156; Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar[1960] 11 STC 104 (Pat); Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT[2010] 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), to cite some. In each case, it stands clarified that the matter of condonation of delay is essentially a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the anvil of due diligence and bona fides in prosecuting it’s affairs being shown by the applicant. 4.2 In a spate of Miscellaneous P…

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 52/COCH/2023[2015-16 (QT1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

…/2023 New Higher Secondary School vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) SC 361; H.H. Brij Inder Singh vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917-PC-156;Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. v. CST, 87 STC 266 (Guj);M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak, AIR 1938 Nag. 156; Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar[1960] 11 STC 104 (Pat); Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT[2010] 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), to cite some. In each case, it stands clarified that the matter of condonation of delay is essentially a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the anvil of due diligence and bona fides in prosecuting it’s affairs being shown by the applicant. 4.2 In a spate of Miscellaneous P…

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

…ause/reasons to file the present appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal well within time allowed. 4. [Whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence?] In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Gujarat 87 STC 266), BaldeoLal Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M Loganathan VS CIT (Madras 302 ITR 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. 5. [Wheth…

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 909/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Aby T.Varkey, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 908& 909/Coch/2022 (Assessment Years: 2010-11& 2011-12) Kasaragod Tody Tappers and The Income Tax Officer Shop Workers Co-opeative Ward -1, Kasargod Society Ltd. vs. Munnad P.O., Kasargod 671541 [PAN:AABAK4028Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of two Appeals by the assessee c…

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Aby T.Varkey, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 908& 909/Coch/2022 (Assessment Years: 2010-11& 2011-12) Kasaragod Tody Tappers and The Income Tax Officer Shop Workers Co-opeative Ward -1, Kasargod Society Ltd. vs. Munnad P.O., Kasargod 671541 [PAN:AABAK4028Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of two Appeals by the assessee c…

JAGDISH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee's are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri R.N. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Poona
Section 147

…ellant has acted with reasonable diligence. For such finding reliance is placed on the following case laws: (i) Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156 (ii) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266 (iii) Baldeo Lal Roy Vs. State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat.) (iv) M. Loganathan Vs. CIT (Mad.) 302 ITR 139 11 Shri Jagdish Sharma vs ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur The reasons for late filing of the appeal as cited above cannot said to be bona-fide and therefore, this case is not found fit for condonation of delay. As the appeal has not been presented as per provision of sec. 249(2) of IT Act and the dela…

SOVEN TRADING AND INVESTMENT CO.P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7286/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Soven Trading & Dcit-8(3), बनाम/ Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 142, Ghaswal Estate, S.V. Vs. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400102 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcs0143Q यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ajay Singh याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 260A(2)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…iling appeal. 4 M/s Soven Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (d) Brij Inders Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj) 87 STC 266, M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak AIR 1938 Nag. 156 and Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat) - Delay in filing the appeal - cause for delay - whether the appellant has acted with reasonable ·diligence in the prosecuting of his appeal - to be looked into. (e) Mrs. Anita Chadha Vs. CIT 189 Taxman 300 (Pb & Haryana) - Whether delay in filing of appeal beyond period of 120 days prescribed by Sec. 260A(2)(a) can be condoned by entertain…

SRI DEBASISH ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2279/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2279/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Sri Debasish Roy Chowdhury, Vs. Acit, Circle-52, Kolkata 46E/1, New Ballygunge Road, 2, Gariahat Road(South), Kolkata-39 Kolkata-68 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipr 7212 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Saswati Mitra(Dutta), Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit,Srdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mrs. Saswati Mitra(Dutta), AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT,SRDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

…e diligence on the part of appellant and the latter was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. Reference in the matter can be drawn to the decision in the case of Pt.Krishna Rao D Phalke vs. Trimbak AI.R 1938 Nag 156 and Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat.) It has also been held in a number of cases that the appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing appeal on the last date of limitation and must explain the delay, day after day, till the actual filing. In other words, the whole of delay must be explained. Some of such cases are Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Sitar…