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 367,659 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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253(5)Section 148Section 249(3)Section 5

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 249(3)section 249section 253delay in filing appealcondonation of delaysection 24registration under section 12asection 80g(5)reasonable causesection 80gsection 12ab

Judgments citing Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

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 566/PUN/2022[2013-14, 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 565/PUN/2022[2013-14 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 129/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. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 128/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. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 127/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. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 126/PUN/2022[2014-15 (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. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 125/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 124/PUN/2022[2014-15 (24Q Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 123/PUN/2022[2013-14 (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. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

New English School & Jr College, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 122/PUN/2022[2013-14 (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. 122/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 2. 123/Pun /2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 3. 124/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 4. 125/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/24Q 5. 126/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 6. 127/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q/1/24Q 7. 128/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 8. 129/Pun/2022` 2015-16 Q4/24Q

For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

Deochand Gangalal Mudhokar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (CPC), TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, grounds of appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/PUN/2021[2013-14 (26Q Q-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
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…

Deochand Gangalal Mudhokar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (CPC), TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, grounds of appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/PUN/2021[2013-14(26Q Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
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…

Navnath Mahadev Bhosale, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 649/PUN/2021[2014-15 (26Q Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 220Section 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…

Navnath Mahadev Bhosale, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2021[2013-14 (26Q Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 220Section 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…

Navnath Mahadev Bhosale, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (CPC), TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 647/PUN/2021[2013-14 926Q Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 220Section 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…

Kumar Urban Development P Ltd (Pune Mumbai Realty P Ltd Merged With River View Properties Pvt.Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development P Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 357/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1323 & 357/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited merged with River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. and River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. merged with Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10th Floor, Kumar Business Center, CTS No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. PAN : AADCP8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue…

Kumar Urban Development P Ltd (Pune Mumbai Realty P Ltd Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd Merged With Kumar Urban Development P Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1323/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1323 & 357/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited merged with River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. and River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. merged with Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10th Floor, Kumar Business Center, CTS No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. PAN : AADCP8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue…

Amrita Constructions and Equipments Engineering P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 556/PUN/2021[2014-15 (26Q Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year 1. 545/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q3/26Q 2. 546/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q3/264 3. 547/Pun/2021 2015-16 Q4/26Q 4. 556/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q2/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234E

…Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the 3 ITA 545, 546, 547 & 556/PUN/2021 Amrita Constructions A.Y. 2014-15 & 20116 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…

Amrita Constructions and Equipments Engineering P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 547/PUN/2021[2015-16 (26Q Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year 1. 545/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q3/26Q 2. 546/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q3/264 3. 547/Pun/2021 2015-16 Q4/26Q 4. 556/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q2/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234E

…Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the 3 ITA 545, 546, 547 & 556/PUN/2021 Amrita Constructions A.Y. 2014-15 & 20116 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…

Amrita Constructions and Equipments Engineering P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 546/PUN/2021[2014-15 (26Q Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year 1. 545/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q3/26Q 2. 546/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q3/264 3. 547/Pun/2021 2015-16 Q4/26Q 4. 556/Pun/2021 2014-15 Q2/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234E

…Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the 3 ITA 545, 546, 547 & 556/PUN/2021 Amrita Constructions A.Y. 2014-15 & 20116 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…