Cf. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Voltas Ltd., AIR 1995 Guj 29, 43 (FB), Calicut Trading Co. vs. Deputy CCT, 9

110 STC 195Reported decision1998#21997 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250 Section 10(20)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

condonation of delay india nfac

Judgments citing Cf. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Voltas Ltd., AIR 1995 Guj 29, 43 (FB), Calicut Trading Co. vs. Deputy CCT, 9

Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane vs. ITO, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

…the appellant has not been able to produce any facts to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal in time. [Cf. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Voltas Ltd., AIR 1995 Guj 29, 43 (FB), Calicut Trading Co. vs. Deputy CCT, 91998) 110 STC 195, 199 (Karn). It is the duty of the appellant to place the relevant facts that there was a sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. In the absence of such facts, no presumption can be drawn that there must a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time [ Union of India v. Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1999 Raj 216, 221…

Kolhapur Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, Kolhapur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2778/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

…, the appellant has not been able to produce any facts to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal in time [Cf. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Voltas Ltd., AIR 1995 Guj 29, 43 (FB), Calicut Trading Co. vs. Deputy CCT, 91998) 110 STC 195, 199 (Karn). It is the duty of the appellant to place the relevant facts that there was a sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. In the absence of such facts, no presumption can be drawn that there must a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time [Union of India v. Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1999 Raj 216, 221)…

Premadevi Rameshchandra Agrawal, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 599/PUN/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.599/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi

Section 144

…2162. 2. Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Shripati Pandurang Khada (1989) Supp (1) SCC 226, 23. 3. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad Vs. Voltas Ltd. – AIR 1995 Guj 29, 43 (FB) 4. Calicut Trading Co. Vs. Dy.CCT (1998) 110 STC 195, 199 (Karn.) 5. Union of India Vs. Brijlal Prabhu Dayal – AIR 1999 Raj 216, 221 6. Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. – AIR 1962 SC 361, 7. Ashotosh Bhadra Vs. Jatindra Mohan – AIR 1954 Cal 238 8. Soorajmull Nagarmal vs. Golden Fibre & Products – AIR 1969 Cal 381, 384 9. Classic Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Janak Steel Tubes Ltd. (1998) 93 Comp Cas 165, 167,…