Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

7 SCC 123Supreme Court of India1998#203 most cited

What is Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy authority for?

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

368

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,725 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · Section 253(5) · Section 249(3) · Section 253 · Section 249 · Section 250 · reasonable cause · sufficient cause · substantial justice · bona fide explanation

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

Mittal Park Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1029/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmittal Park Co-Opp. Housing Society Ltd. 44, Mittal Park, Janardhan Mhatra Marg, Ruiapark, Juhu-Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aaaam2918E ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manoj Mahimkar Respondent By : Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (For Short ‘Nfac’), Delhi Dated 06.04.2022 Under Section 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, [Hon. Cit- (A)] Has Erred On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj MahimkarFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 254Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…eing interpreted liberally, it cannot be so liberally that it is without any justification, since condonation of delay in a mechanical or routine manner will jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5. 11. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as long as the conduct of the applicant does not, on the whole, warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant, generally, the delay can be condoned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that during these days when everybody is fully occupied with his avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer - (TDS - 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 582/PUN/2022[2015-16 ( 26Q - Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS - 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 581/PUN/2022[2015-16 (26Q - Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS-1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 580/PUN/2022[2015-16 (26Q - Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 579/PUN/2022[2015-16 (24Q Q -4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 578/PUN/2022[2015-16 (24Q Q -3)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 577/PUN/2022[26Q/Quarter-2/2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 576/PUN/2022[2015-16 24Q, (Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 575/PUN/2022[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 574/PUN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 573/PUN/2022[26Q/Quarter-2/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 572/PUN/2022[2014-15 (26Q Q -1)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS- 1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 571/PUN/2022[2014-15 24Q -Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer - (TDS-1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/PUN/2022[2014-15 24Q - Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 569/PUN/2022[2014-15 24Q - Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer - (TDS-1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 568/PUN/2022[2014-15 24Q - Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…

Allacode Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer- (TDS-1), Pune

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 567/PUN/2022[2013-14 24Q - Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…uct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties d…