Andhra Pradesh v. Venkatraman Chudava vs. Muramura Merchant

159 ITR 59High Court1986#15388 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 269SSSection 269STSection 269TSection 271DA

Judgments citing Andhra Pradesh v. Venkatraman Chudava vs. Muramura Merchant

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 471/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.471/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Rajani Gold Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward(1) Pan:Acnfs6675E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/05/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Da Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 474 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 271D

…ITA 471 of 2024 Sri Rajani Gold Vijayawada आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam “Division” Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri S. Balakrishnan, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.471/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Rajani Gold Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward(1) PAN:ACNFS6675E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement…

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1973/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

Section 143(3)

…favour of the assessee would constitute sufficient cause for explaining the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Venkataramana Chuduva & Muramura Merchant reported in 159 ITR 59 (AP) and Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sothia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd., reported in 186 ITR 182 (Cal) had held that the subsequent decision of the Hon‟ble High Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court which changed the position, the interpretation or the understanding of law, constituted sufficient cause for condoning the…

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3552/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…a matter of discretion which should be used objectively in lust cases. It was so decided in the case of an Balaicrishnan vs. M Krishnamoorthy (1998) 7 SCC, 123 and again in case of a state of Andhra Pradesh vs. Venkatraman Chudava vs. Muramura Merchant (1986) 159 ITR 59 (AP), Concord of Indian insurance company limited vs. Sint. Nirmaladevi & Sons (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC). However, in cases where the appellant have not come up clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the delay cannot be condoned merely because of sympathy. It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. Rs) &Ors. v. State of H…

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3551/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…a matter of discretion which should be used objectively in lust cases. It was so decided in the case of an Balaicrishnan vs. M Krishnamoorthy (1998) 7 SCC, 123 and again in case of a state of Andhra Pradesh vs. Venkatraman Chudava vs. Muramura Merchant (1986) 159 ITR 59 (AP), Concord of Indian insurance company limited vs. Sint. Nirmaladevi & Sons (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC). However, in cases where the appellant have not come up clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the delay cannot be condoned merely because of sympathy. It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. Rs) &Ors. v. State of H…

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

…e, the decision relied on are not helpful. To strengthen the view that delay for each day has to be explained by the appellant reliance is placed on the following decisions. (a) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Venkataramana Chuduva & Murmura Merchant & Anr. (AP) 159 ITR 59 - High Court's order against the assessee later on reversed by Supreme Court since - High Court judgment was against the assessee it did not file appeal, but when SC decision came in its favour, it decided to file appeal - This is a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. But when assessment order was passed and limitation to file appeal over,…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4866/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4866 & 5096/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80I

…less sufficient, cause has been advanced for condonation of delay. Reliance for the purpose, even as our decision is based on clear findings of fact, is placed on the decision in the case of State of A.P vs. Venkataramana Chuduva & Othrs., reported at [1986] 159 ITR 59 (A.P). The reliance by the assessee on the decision in the case of Kewalkumar Jain vs. Asst. CIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 248 (Pune) is 6 I.T.A. No. 5096 & 4866/Mum/2015 Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Limited v. CIT/Dy. CIT misplaced. In the facts of that case, the revisionary authority had set aside the assessment for the AO to arrive at the…