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 367,518 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

Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS)2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 2643/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 194ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 2642 & 2643/MUM/2016 : A.Ys : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, (Respondent) Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 PAN : AACCN2854Q (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Rahul Hakani Respondent by : Shri V. Justin Date of Hearing : 06/07/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned are two appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12, and since…

Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 2642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 194ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 2642 & 2643/MUM/2016 : A.Ys : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, (Respondent) Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 PAN : AACCN2854Q (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Rahul Hakani Respondent by : Shri V. Justin Date of Hearing : 06/07/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned are two appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12, and since…

Mohamed Aslam Ryain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3400/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Amarjit Singh] आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3400/Mum/2014 & 5062/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 बिधम/ Mohamed Aslam Ryain Ito Wd 20(2)(2) R.No. 607, 6Th Floor, Piramal 202, A.N. G. Complex, Military Vs. Road, Andheri(E) Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Pin:400059 Mumbai Pin: 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpr9944H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Parmar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

…get opportunity to represent his case before authority. The assessee failed to represent his case before the CIT(A). Technicalities should not be hurdle to achieve the goal of the justice. In view of the case cited as N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 7 SCC 123 & Shankarrao Vs. Chandrasenkunwar in (1987) Supp SCC 338, & Surya General Traders Vs. CTO (2003) 133 TC 388, 389, (AP). We are of the view that the delay is liable to be condoned hence, we order accordingly. However, Mohamed Aslam Rayain the assessee did not argue the case on merits but took the plea that the CIT(A) has passed the order dated 30.…

Oricon Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 7387/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

Section 69ASection 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Orion Enterprises, ACIT, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AABFO0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by NONE राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Subhacham Ram CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2015/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 2015/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2016/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs M/S L. D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-5, Tu-70, Pitam Pura, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl1304J Co No. 05/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Co No. 06/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S L. D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Tu-70, Pitam Pura, Central Circle-5, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl1304J Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Seema Raj, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Seema Raj, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA No. 2015/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 2016/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 DCIT, Vs M/s L. D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-5, TU-70, Pitam Pura, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCL1304J CO No. 05/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 CO No. 06/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/s L. D. Crystal Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, TU-70, Pitam Pura, Central Circle-5, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCL1304J Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, CA…

D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S Amri Hospital Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 807/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…d by the Supreme Court that if a party had acted in a particular manner on a wrong advice given by his legal advisor, he cannot be held guilty of negligence so as to disentitle the party to plead sufficient cause. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123, it was held by the Supreme Court that the rules of limitation are ITA No.807 & CO 01/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-2, Kol. Vs. Amri Hospital Ltd. Page 6 not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties did not resort to dilatory tactics but seeking their remedy promptly. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion…

Mohd Gafuruddin F. Siddique, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 79/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Mohd. Gafuruddin F. Siddiqui, Cit-15, Flat No.1, Gr. Flr, Saadath Mumbai बनाम/ Manzil, 35, Bora St. Null Vs. Bazar, Behind Safai Masjid, Mumbai-400003 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aapps1966C

Section 143(3)Section 263

…order dated 26/10/2015, supports the case of the Revenue. 4 Mohd. Gafuruddin F.Siddique 2.2. We have also considered the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, land acquisition vs Kataji 167 ITR 471, (SC), L. Balkrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vasue & Company vs State of Kerala (2001) 124 STC 124 (Kerala.) We have perused the reasons mentioned by the assessee in its application for condonotion of delay along with the cited cases. Before us, the assessee has relied upon the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case 167 ITR 471(SC) Collector, land Acquisition vs Katiji. We find…

Jord Engineers (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 644/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Amit Shukla ()

Section 143(3)Section 144

…fficient cause” should receive liberal construction and in the interest of justice, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following case law in support of his contentions:- (a) N.Balakrishnan Vs. M Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123)(SC) (Delay of 883 days) (b) Baburao Deora Wankhede Vs. Sewa Sahakari Sanstha (W.P. No.1974 of 1979 dated 02-08-1988) (Delay of 10 years) (c) Phoenix Mills Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITA No.6240/M/2007 dated 23-03- 2010)(Mum ITAT) which is upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 09-12-2011 passed in ITA No.5596 of 2010. (Delay of 1358 days).…

Shree Datta Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5061/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 80Section 80I

…the justice, the course which advances justice is to be preferred. The reliance is also placed on decision of of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiz and Others, 167 ITR 471 and N. Balkrishna v. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with the Tribunal are as under: 1.“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and that t…

Sabyasachi Ray, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 6042/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6042/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Sabyasachi Ray, Ito – 11(1)(4), बनाम/ C-31, Wild Wood Park, Mumbai. V. Yari Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafpr1185A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…24-79 which are filed for the first time before the Tribunal. In support, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiz and Others, 167 ITR 471 , N. Balkrishna v. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and other cases as per details filed. 4. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have observed from the assessee’s application along affidavit dated 11-10-2013, that the assessee was prevented by sufficient caus…

Gupta Gemhouse P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)

…s advised to file the appeal in the quantum proceedings. Thus, in these circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. In support, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishna vs M. Krishnamurthy (1997) 7 SCC 123, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the words “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally. Here in this case he submitted that there is no mala fide or deliberate delay by the assessee. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly objected to the condoning the delay on the ground that, no reasonable cause has been given for such a huge dela…

The Commissioner of Income Tax- IV vs. M/s. Prabhat Agri Bio Tech P Ltd

ITTA/459/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

DCIT CC 23, Mumbai vs. Rikin Barot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6547/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.6547/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) The Asst. Cit Central Circle- Vs. Shri. Rikin Barot. 23, B-22,Ashirwad, Room No. 464, 4Th Floor, V.M.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Marg, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400049. "थायी लेखा सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aenpb9147G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B.S.BistFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘डी’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं राम लाल नेगी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.6547/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) The Asst. CIT Central Circle- Vs. Shri. Rikin Barot. 23, B-22,Ashirwad, Room No. 464, 4th Floor, V.M.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Marg, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400049. "थायी लेखा सं/.जीआइआर सं/.PAN/GIR No. : AENPB9147G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & ""या"ेप सं/.C.O.No.259/Mum/2012 (Arising…

Iata Bsp, India, Mumbai vs. ADIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5666/MUM/2011[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 248

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,L,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “L”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member ITA Nos.2339,2340,2341, 2342, 2343,4289/M/2010 & ITA Nos.5666, 3272, 2147/M/2011 Assessment Year: Not applicable International Air Transport Association ADIT, 3(1), 101, HDO Corporate Enclave, बनाम/ ‘B’ Wing, B.D. Sawant Marg, Mumbai- Vs. Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400099 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAAFB6235E "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Appellant Shri Nitesh Jo…

Iata Bsp India, Mumbai vs. ADIT 3(1)

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4289/MUM/2010[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 248

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,L,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “L”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member ITA Nos.2339,2340,2341, 2342, 2343,4289/M/2010 & ITA Nos.5666, 3272, 2147/M/2011 Assessment Year: Not applicable International Air Transport Association ADIT, 3(1), 101, HDO Corporate Enclave, बनाम/ ‘B’ Wing, B.D. Sawant Marg, Mumbai- Vs. Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400099 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAAFB6235E "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Appellant Shri Nitesh Jo…

Iata Bsp, India, Mumbai vs. ADIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2341/MUM/2010[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 248

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,L,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “L”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member ITA Nos.2339,2340,2341, 2342, 2343,4289/M/2010 & ITA Nos.5666, 3272, 2147/M/2011 Assessment Year: Not applicable International Air Transport Association ADIT, 3(1), 101, HDO Corporate Enclave, बनाम/ ‘B’ Wing, B.D. Sawant Marg, Mumbai- Vs. Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400099 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAAFB6235E "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Appellant Shri Nitesh Jo…

Iata Bsp, India, Mumbai vs. ADIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/MUM/2010[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 248

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,L,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “L”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member ITA Nos.2339,2340,2341, 2342, 2343,4289/M/2010 & ITA Nos.5666, 3272, 2147/M/2011 Assessment Year: Not applicable International Air Transport Association ADIT, 3(1), 101, HDO Corporate Enclave, बनाम/ ‘B’ Wing, B.D. Sawant Marg, Mumbai- Vs. Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400099 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAAFB6235E "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Appellant Shri Nitesh Jo…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA/1124/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…apable of rentovtng inlus'lrce arrd r,s expecled lo clo s'tt." ITA Nos.7 54 170 lO, 1 1 3 12010, 11 5 I 2010, 1092 12010, I t 0 I /20 I 0, l 103/2010. I 104/2010, llr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle'…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA/775/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…apable of rentovtng inlus'lrce arrd r,s expecled lo clo s'tt." ITA Nos.7 54 170 lO, 1 1 3 12010, 11 5 I 2010, 1092 12010, I t 0 I /20 I 0, l 103/2010. I 104/2010, llr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle'…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA/1112/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

…apable of rentovtng inlus'lrce arrd r,s expecled lo clo s'tt." ITA Nos.7 54 170 lO, 1 1 3 12010, 11 5 I 2010, 1092 12010, I t 0 I /20 I 0, l 103/2010. I 104/2010, llr2l2010 &" ll24l20 l0 I'age l9 ol'22 8v 23 In N. Balahtshtnn t,. M. I*'ishrnnmrlh.y, (1998) 7 SCC 123 thc Supt'ctttc Court again reiterated the approach In Ram Nalh Sao (a) ftcrm Nalh Su]ru curcl Or's I".s' Gobarc{han Sao and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supretne (ltxtt't that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the mle and relusal, zrn exception, ll1ore so when no negligence or iltzrctiou or rva-nt ol lxttrtt .fitle'…