How many judgments cite CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra (257 ITR 773), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 249(3), Section 253(5), Section 271(1)(c), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144.

CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra

257 ITR 773High Court2002#2211 most cited

What is CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra authority for?

Statutory provisions prescribing limitation periods must be applied strictly. Delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned for sufficient, bona fide, and well-substantiated cause, requiring due diligence from the appellant, and not merely on vague or general grounds.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra · 257 ITR 773 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · limitation period · appeal filing delay · strict application of limitation · section 249(3) · section 253(5) · bona fide reason · negligence in appeal

Sections most often in play

Section 249(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 144B Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 256 section 202 section 66 bona fide mistake section 253(3)section 253(5)section 249(3)section 264 stay petition section 249 principal officer section 253

Judgments citing CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra

M/S.Kerala Medical Services Corpn Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(4), Trivandrum

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 249(3)

…fficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 4.3. Before going into issue of condonation of delay, it would be relevant to place on record principle laid down by Hon'ble Courts with regard to condonation of delay. In the case of Ram Mohan Kabra, 257 ITR 773, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, has observed as under: “3. The provisions of relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where th…

M/S.Kerala Medical Services Corpn Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(4), Trivandrum

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 249(3)

M/S.Kerala Medical Services Corpn Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(4), Trivandrum

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 249(3)

Kinzo Exports P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, appeals of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 6554/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri B.L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142A(1)Section 153C

…consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. Now in the present case, the delay is not of a few days but of 175 days. Besides, there is absolutely no valid explanation/reason for the delay. In the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the speci…

Kinzo Exports P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, appeals of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 6553/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri B.L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142A(1)Section 153C

M/S.the Nelliampathy Tea & Produce Co.Ltd, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 315/COCH/2018[1994-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 May 2019AY 1994-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 23DSection 250Section 250(2)Section 80H

…e expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 5.2 For this purpose, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ram Mohan Kabra (257 ITR 773), wherein while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, the Court has observed as under: "3. The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells o…

Rizwan, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 7807/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Mago, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. Now in the present case, the delay is not of a few days but of 441 days. Besides, there is absolutely no valid explanation/reason for the delay. In the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by 8 ITA.No.7807/Del./2018 Shri Rizwan, Gurgaon. cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principl…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

ITA 5073/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai-CIT-DR

Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80H

…ondonation of delay is liable to be rejected" Similar observation were made by Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT vs Jaya Publication [309 ITR (AT)245] Further, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 held that it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. Iv. In view of We facts and legal position as discussed above, I am satisfied that there was no "sufficient cause" as provided under section 249(3) for filing appeal beyond the pre…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. D.K. Jain, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1485/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit D. K. Jain Circle – 32(1) D-19, Nazamuddin East, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam JainFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

…such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. Now in the present case delay is not of a few days but of 557 days. Besides, there is absolutely no valid explanation/reason for the delay. In the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the…

Oricon Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 7387/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

Section 69ASection 80H

…ercise of its power under section 256 of the Act. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. 13 M/s Orian Enterprises Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P& H). The totality of facts, clearly indicates that the assessee took a conscious decision firstly, not to file the appeal against the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority and thereafter took a decision to file the appeal. It is not the case of delay which was beyond the control of the assessee. So far as, the affidavit is concerned, it i…

Mohd Gafuruddin F. Siddique, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 79/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Mohd. Gafuruddin F. Siddiqui, Cit-15, Flat No.1, Gr. Flr, Saadath Mumbai बनाम/ Manzil, 35, Bora St. Null Vs. Bazar, Behind Safai Masjid, Mumbai-400003 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aapps1966C

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of law, to this court in exercise of its power under section 256 of the Act. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P& H). Our view also finds support from the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Brihan Mumbai Kreeda & Lalitkala Pratisthan vs DIT (Exmp.) (ITA NO.6417/Mum/2013) order dated 20/11/2015. The totality of facts, clearly indicates that the assessee took a conscious decision firstly, not to file the appeal against the order of the ld. Com…

M/S. Deventhira Spinners (P) Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2442/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2442 Of 2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Supriya Pal, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154

…rior motive. What else, one may ask, prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time? The ld. CIT(A) has, in not condoning the delay, relied on the decisions in the case of Madhu Daha v. Dy. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 458 (Mad) and CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H). The proposition that the appellant must show sufficient cause for the delay is well-settled. What is sufficient cause is a matter of fact, even as clarified in Ram Mohan Kabra (supra), and which we have found as so considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the legal position in the matter. What we have, in substance,…