Bombay:- 1. N. Balakrishnan v. M Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 2. H.L Malhotra & Com. vs. DCIT

431 ITR 148High Court#24985 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing Bombay:- 1. N. Balakrishnan v. M Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 2. H.L Malhotra & Com. vs. DCIT

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6140/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

…ppeal may kindly be condoned. The ld. counsel has relied on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble High Court of Bombay:- 1. N. Balakrishnan v M Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 2. H.L Malhotra & Com. vs. DCIT 431 ITR 148 (Del) 3. Vijay Meghani vs. ITO 389 ITR 250 (Bom) 4. Peter Vaz vs. CIT 436 ITR 76 (Bom) 3. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted the assessee could have engage another counsel or consultant for filing appeal within prescribed time limit before the ld. CIT(A) therefore inordinate delay…

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6139/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

…ppeal may kindly be condoned. The ld. counsel has relied on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble High Court of Bombay:- 1. N. Balakrishnan v M Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 2. H.L Malhotra & Com. vs. DCIT 431 ITR 148 (Del) 3. Vijay Meghani vs. ITO 389 ITR 250 (Bom) 4. Peter Vaz vs. CIT 436 ITR 76 (Bom) 3. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted the assessee could have engage another counsel or consultant for filing appeal within prescribed time limit before the ld. CIT(A) therefore inordinate delay…

Aara Agro Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 207Section 234BSection 234C

…ovement Trust vs. Uijaqar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 (Page No.109 to 122 of paper book) Unless mala fides are writ large. delay should be condoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits and not technicalities. 12.3 431 ITR 148 (Del) HL Malhotra& Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT(page No.123 to 128 of paper book) (Relevant Para 16) It was held that in absence of anything male fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Co…

Bombay:- 1. N. Balakrishnan v. M Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 2. H.L Malhotra & Com. vs. DCIT (431 ITR 148) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax