Brij Inders Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.)

Q: How many judgments cite Brij Inders Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.)?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite Brij Inders Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.) (87 STC 266), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Brij Inders Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 5 (Limitation Act), Section 115JAA, Section 115JB, Section 127, Section 139 (Income Tax Act), Section 142(1).

87 STC 266High Court1992#8009 most cited

What is Brij Inders Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.) authority for?

Delay in filing an appeal is not a matter of right to condonation. The court must exercise discretionary jurisdiction, considering whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Brij Inders Singh v. Kanshi Ram · condonation of delay · reasonable diligence · appeal filing delay · limitation period · discretionary jurisdiction · section 5 Limitation Act · prosecuting appeal · cause for delay

Sections most often in play

Section 5 (Limitation Act)Section 115JAA Section 115JB Section 127 Section 139 (Income Tax Act)Section 142(1)Section 142(1) (Income Tax Act)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

principal officer section 200a section 234e delay in filing appeal section 234 condonation of delay section 23 section 24 reasonable cause prescribed india nfac

Judgments citing Brij Inders Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.)

Rain Cements, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

…h the reasonings adduced by the learned Accountant Member." 1. The Gujarat High Court laid down principle for condonation of delay in the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad 1991 (3) TMI 355-GUJARAT HC [1992] 87 STC 266 (Guj) Dt:15-3-1991 as under--- "In our opinion, the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee had failed to make 12 ITA.No.540/Hyd./2025 out sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed time. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is,…

Shri Om Parshavnath Developers Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 23/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Om Parshvanath Developers Private Limited Nadi Road, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G)-491 001 Pan: Aamcs7665N

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nation rendered for condonation of delay. (v) The jurisdictional Gujarat High Court laid down principle for condonation of delay in the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad 1991 (3) TMI 355 — GUJARAT HC [1992] 87 STC 266 (Guj) Dt:15-3-1991 as under:- "In our opinion, the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee had failed to make out sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed time. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and i…

Trident Sales Corporation, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 5

…condonation of delay. The ld. DR placed on reliance various decisions to counter the reasons given in the application/affidavit for condoning delay some of the decisions on which reliance is placed by the ld. DR are: (i) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. Gujarat 87 STC 266; (ii) Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; (iii) Agricultural Market Committee vs. ADIT in ITA No. 1275/Hyd/2022 decided on 10.02.2012; (iv) Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. 98 ITD 200 (Chennai); and (v) Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products P. Ltd., vs. DCIT 48 ITD 543 (Ahd.) 4. Submissions of both sides heard on the issue…

Celestial Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Ambalamugal vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Ernaluam

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

…delay. 7.6. Since the reasons mentioned by the appellant are not satisfactory for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is evident that appellant had no cause for not filing the appeal in time. 7.7 In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd (Gujarat 87 STC 266), Baldeo Lai Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M Loganathan Vs CIT (Madras 302 ITR 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligen…

Kolangath Muhammed Aslam, Tanur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1005/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskolangath Muhammed Aslam The Income Tax Officer Kolangath House Ward - 1 & Tps, Tirur Pariyapuram P.O. Vs. Tanur 676302 [Pan:Ccypk9063K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hamid Hussain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 5

…Maharashtra State Government Employee Confederation (Appeal No. CC3159-3160 of 2009, 23.3.2009 (SC)); Ramlal, Madanlal & Chottelat v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; H.H. Brij Inder Singh vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917-PC-156; Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. v. CST, 87 STC 266 (Guj);M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak, AIR 1938 Nag. 156; Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar [1960] 11 STC 104 (Pat); Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT[2010] 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), to cite some. 3.3 The requirement of sufficient cause u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is, in our view, not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case, for us…

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 55/COCH/2023[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

…160 of 2009, 23.3.2009 (SC)); Ramlal, Madanlal & Chottelat v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 3 ITA Nos. 52-55/Coch/2023 New Higher Secondary School vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) SC 361; H.H. Brij Inder Singh vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917-PC-156;Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. v. CST, 87 STC 266 (Guj);M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak, AIR 1938 Nag. 156; Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar[1960] 11 STC 104 (Pat); Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT[2010] 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), to cite some. In each case, it stands clarified that the matter of condonation of delay is essentially a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the anvil of due dil…

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/COCH/2023[2015-16 (Qurt-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2023[2015-16 QTR 2]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

New Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 52/COCH/2023[2015-16 (QT1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

Srd Management Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

…e that the appellant was prevented with sufficient cause/reasons to file the present appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal well within time allowed. 4. [Whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence?] In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Gujarat 87 STC 266), BaldeoLal Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M Loganathan VS CIT (Madras 302 ITR 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appe…

M/S the Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-Op Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. ITO Ward 1, Kasargod

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 909/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

…elay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day thereafter - Condonation is not a matter of right - Court has to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. 2. Brij Inders Singh vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266, M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak AIR 1938 Nag. 156 and Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat) - Delay in filing the appeal - cause for delay - whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of his appeal - to be looked into. 3. Mrs. Anita Chadha vs. CIT 189 Taxman 300 (P & H) - Whether delay in…

M/S the Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-Op Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. ITO Ward -1, Kasargod

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

Jagdish Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 914/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Poona

Section 147

…eal can be condoned only in the circumstances when the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. For such finding reliance is placed on the following case laws: (i) Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156 (ii) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266 (iii) Baldeo Lal Roy Vs. State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat.) (iv) M. Loganathan Vs. CIT (Mad.) 302 ITR 139 11 Shri Jagdish Sharma vs ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur The reasons for late filing of the appeal as cited above cannot said to be bona-fide and therefore, this case is not found fit for condonation of delay. As the appeal has not been presen…

Soven Trading and Investment Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7286/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Soven Trading & Dcit-8(3), बनाम/ Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 142, Ghaswal Estate, S.V. Vs. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400102 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcs0143Q यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ajay Singh याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 260A(2)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…ITD 219 - Time taken to obtain certified copy of order can be excluded for computing period of limitation for filing appeal. 4 M/s Soven Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (d) Brij Inders Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj) 87 STC 266, M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak AIR 1938 Nag. 156 and Baldeo Lal Roy vs. State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat) - Delay in filing the appeal - cause for delay - whether the appellant has acted with reasonable ·diligence in the prosecuting of his appeal - to be looked into. (e) Mrs. Anita Chadha Vs. CIT 189 Taxman 300 (Pb & Haryana) - Whethe…