How many judgments cite Bhattacharjee v. Managing?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite Bhattacharjee v. Managing (9 SCR 782), spanning 2024 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bhattacharjee v. Managing come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 253(1), Section 246A, Section 132, Section 144, Section 131.

Bhattacharjee v. Managing

9 SCR 782Supreme Court of India#5315 most cited

What is Bhattacharjee v. Managing authority for?

The condonation of delay in filing an appeal requires a liberal approach, but this approach must be balanced with reasonableness, and the applicant's conduct, including negligence or malafide intentions, cannot be ignored. Fanciful or concocted explanations for the delay will not be countenanced.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bhattacharjee v. Managing · condonation of delay · liberal approach · reasonableness · negligence · bonafide · delay in filing appeal · ITAT · Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 253(1)Section 246A Section 132 Section 144 Section 131 Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)section 253(3)section 197a section 249(2)section 246a section 156 section 139(4)section 249 section 140 section 253 delay in filing appeal first appeal

Judgments citing Bhattacharjee v. Managing

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panaji

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

…ficiency’ of reasons put forth by the appellant, we deem it apt to first quote core principles on the subject which are culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme court in ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)]; (a) Lack of bonafied imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and totally unfettered free play is not allowed; (c) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its negligence cannot be given a tot…

Kuldeep Makhija, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(3), Pune

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

ITA 946/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 253(1)

…ing ‘sufficiency’ of reasons put forth by the appellant, it is apt to first quote core principles on the subject which are culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme court in ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)]; (a) Lack of bonafied imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and totally unfettered free play is not allowed; (c) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its negligence cannot be given a tot…