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

Malpur Taluka Primary Teachers Sahkari Sakh & Grahak Sahkari Mandli, Malpur vs. The ACIT., Himatnagar Circle, Himatnagar

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

ITA 821/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2018-19 Malpur Taluka Primary Acit, Himatnagar Circle Teachers Sahkari Sakh & Vs Himatnagar. Grahak Sahkari Mandali, Malpur, Dist. Aralli Malpur 383 345. Pan : Aacat 9023 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Assessee By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

…berate or intentional so as not to condone the delay. To buttress his contention, the ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on various case laws including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) (7 SCC 123) to the proposition that the law of limitation should be liberally interpreted to achieve the ends of justice. The ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that even otherwise, the assessment proceedings fell within the COVID period whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the period of limitation in all the proceedings w.e.f. 15.3.2020…

Yuwak Sangh, Churu vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 668/JPR/2023[2022-23(NOT APPLICABLE)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: Cit(Exemption), Jaipur For Registration U/ 12Ab On 22.09.2022. The Id. Cit(E) Rejected The Application Of The Assessee On Dt. 23.02.2023 On The Reason

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 5

…s.CIT(E) 6. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s C…

Gielle Investments Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 6(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1151/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

…us risk. 6. It must be grapped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." (b) In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary junction of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause woul…

Avishi Projects LLP, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore.

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

ITA 1249/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

…us risk. 6. It must be grapped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." (b) In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary junction of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause woul…

Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal, Valsad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…ower to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." I.T.A No. 797/Ahd/2023 Page No 14 Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal vs. CIT(E) 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, t…

Ritu Duggal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 221(1)Section 250Section 5

…us risk. 6. It must be grapped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." (b) In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary junction of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause woul…

Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shilpaben Nieshbhai Gami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Omkarnagar Society, Ward 3(1)(5), Near Jalaram Temple, Bardoli- Surat 394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp 8678 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 31/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.372/SRT/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shilpaben Nieshbhai Gami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Omkarnagar Society, Ward 3(1)(5), Near Jalaram Temple, Bardoli- Surat 394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACBPP 8678 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 31/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 29/12/2023 आदेश / O…

Rudrax Shine Logistic Private Limited, Bundi vs. ITO Ward Bundi, Bundi

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

ITA 581/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 68

…hereto. 6. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s CI…

Rastogi Segma Furnitech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 559/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37

…thereto. 9. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. 10. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v…

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1496/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. MadhuriFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ction. The Hon’ble High Court The Hon’ble High Court referred to the decision of to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan Vs M Court in the case of N Balakrishnan Vs M Court in the case of N Balakrishnan Vs M Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 , where in it i Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 , where in it is held that Rules of s held that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties but they limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties but they limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties but they were meant to see parties do not resort to dilat…

Raghupahy Dhakshayani, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.133/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Ms. Raghupathy Dhakshayani, The Income Tax Officer, No.100, Raja Garden, Non-Corporate Ward-8(3), Andalammal Street, Chennai. Nolambur, Chennai-600 095. [Pan: Ajbpd 7249 N ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan

…ndonation of huge delay of 1161 days in filing of the appeal. It is a well settled principle of law by the decisions of various courts, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy reported in [1998] 7 SCC 123 held rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107, where although, the Hon’bl…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 60/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 59/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 58/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q, Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 57/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 56/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 55/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 54/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 53/PAN/2022[2013-14 26Q, Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 52/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q, Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
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…