Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B, Section 142(1), Section 250(6).

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (2 SCC 107)

Q: What is Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. authority for?

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Q: How many judgments cite Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.?

451 judgments on BharatTax cite Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (2 SCC 107), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Sukamal Maity, Contai vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia

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

ITA 976/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…nterest of justice and fair play the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merit. The Ld. A.R referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC) and submitted that technicalities should not prevail over these substance and prayed that the assessee cannot be condemned without hearing on merit. 3. The Ld. D.R on the other hand left the issue of condonation of delay to the wisdom of the Bench. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record and reasons cited f…

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…imitation is not available for the Government and Governmental authorities and they are also to be treated in the same yardstick. In Living Media India Limited the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out various principles while considering the expression “Sufficient Cause”. Some of the relevant principles would be that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal laid; refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and 3 cause o…

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 447/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…imitation is not available for the Government and Governmental authorities and they are also to be treated in the same yardstick. In Living Media India Limited the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out various principles while considering the expression “Sufficient Cause”. Some of the relevant principles would be that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal laid; refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and 3 cause o…

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…imitation is not available for the Government and Governmental authorities and they are also to be treated in the same yardstick. In Living Media India Limited the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out various principles while considering the expression “Sufficient Cause”. Some of the relevant principles would be that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal laid; refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and 3 cause o…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Mohar Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…imitation is not available for the Government and Governmental authorities and they are also to be treated in the same yardstick. In Living Media India Limited the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out various principles while considering the expression “Sufficient Cause”. Some of the relevant principles would be that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal laid; refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and 3 cause…

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Kulwaran Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…imitation is not available for the Government and Governmental authorities and they are also to be treated in the same yardstick. In Living Media India Limited the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out various principles while considering the expression “Sufficient Cause”. Some of the relevant principles would be that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal laid; refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and 3 cause…

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Gurmeet Singh Pandher, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…imitation is not available for the Government and Governmental authorities and they are also to be treated in the same yardstick. In Living Media India Limited the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out various principles while considering the expression “Sufficient Cause”. Some of the relevant principles would be that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal laid; refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and 3 cause…

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…that this delay 2 I.T.A. No.432/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Linde India limited (formerly BOC India Limited) was during COVID period and therefore covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC). 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed only ground nos. 1,2& 6 while ground nos. 3,4 & 5 were not pressed accordingly ground nos. 3,4 & 5 are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the invalid exercise of jurisdiction by PCIT u/s 263 of the Act thereby consequent order framed u/s 26…

Panankattoor P A Co-Op Bank Limited, Ayyampalayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (5), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 190/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.190/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Panankattoor P A Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bank Limited, Ward 1(5) Ayyampalayam Post, Erode. Bhavani Taluk, Erode 638 455. [Pan: Aabap 5963F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Shriram Adhethyen, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Shriram Adhethyen, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

…ns stated at paras 1 to 15 of condonation petition given by president of Assessee society and to advance substantial justice and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, (1987) 2 SCC 107, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s148 of the Act. The AO has passed order under section 147 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019 after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act…

Bablu Debnath, Coochbehar vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44A

…assessee has explained. In our opinion , the assessee should not be suffer to technicalities of the matter as the assessee should get opportunity to be heard as has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC) wherein it has been held that the substance must prevail over the technicalities. Accordingly we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO wherein the AO has estimated the turnov…

Saltora Stone Crusher Owners-Welfare Association, Saltora, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 53/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 263Section 69A

…assessee has explained. In our opinion , the assessee should not be suffer to technicalities of the matter as the assessee should get opportunity to be heard as has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC) wherein it has been held that the substance must prevail over the technicalities. Accordingly we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessment order as well as the appellate order have been passed ex-parte without deciding the same on merit. The assessment were passed ex…

Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

ITA 139/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…fide intention on the part of the assessee in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and/or in filing the appeals belatedly. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 ordinarily a litigant I.T.(SS)A Nos. 51 to 53/Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 Page No 6 Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane vs. ITO does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very thres…

Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

ITA 138/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…fide intention on the part of the assessee in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and/or in filing the appeals belatedly. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 2 SCC 107 ordinarily a litigant I.T.(SS)A Nos. 51 to 53/Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 Page No 6 Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane vs. ITO does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very thres…

Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Co.(Merged With Madhav Infra Project Ltd), Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

…Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575 : (1969) 1 SCR 1006] , Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996 : (1979) 3 SCR 694] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 : (1970) 2 SCR 90] and Collector (LA) v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 172] , etc. There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. Each case will have to be co…

R Kamalakannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 4(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1354/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1354/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri R. Kamalakannan, The Income Tax Officer, No.85, Avvaiyar Cross Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(6), Metha Nagar, Chennai. Madavaram Milk Colony, Chennai-600 051. [Pan: Afmpk 7211 A] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidya, Ca %&थ$ की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of : 29.01.2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 192ASection 234B

…s decided ignoring technicalities, the purpose of advancement of substantial justice can be achieved. The sum and substance of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble :: 5 :: Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107, appeal should not be decided on technical grounds. In the present case, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal, even though, the assessee has explained the reasons for such delay. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) is clearly erred in not admitting the…

Rajiv Kumar Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Meerut

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

ITA 2895/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediavs. Ito Rajiv Kumar Singh Vill. Chamrodh, Tarapur, Ward – 2(2) Mawana, Meerut, Up-250 404 Meerut Pan No. Bxepr 0212 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

…t of which downloaded from the e- portal of the Department has been placed before us. Sufficient grounds exists for cononation of delay if any, in the light of judgment in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123 and Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom.). 5. Consequently, we consider it just and proper to summarily restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo consideration of appeal and fresh determination of issues involved in the light of the relevant facts and in a…

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Lakshya Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 181/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 253Section 5

…t the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: "27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period o…

Gurjeet Singh, Ladwa vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kurushetra

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

ITA 2726/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 2(14)

…st and in such background no mala fide can be imputed for delay in filing the first appeal by adopting the hyper technical approach. A reference to the useful judgments in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123 and Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) can be made. 6. Consequently, we consider it just and proper to summarily restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo consideration of appeal and fresh determination of issues involved in the light of the relevant fact…

Smita Biswas, Jalpaiguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 143(2)

…est of justice and fair play the delay which is for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee may kindly be condoned. The Ld. A.R relied in defense of arguments on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC) by laying emphasis that substantial justice should prevail over the technicalities and the assessee should not be denied justice for technical things. 3. The ld. D.R on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments of the Ld. A.R that the delay may be condoned as the assessee has failed to explain the each and every day delay for filing the a…

Ujala Holdings Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3393/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

…s no prejudice has caused to revenue. I find merit in such plea. The cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over such technical considerations. Following the principles in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, the CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. 6. I also find merit in the plea that dismissal of the appeal in limine is unjust and unfair owing to non attendance in last week of October, 2022 when major tax compliances are obligated on the tax payers. It is a matter of common knowledge that the tax counsels are tied…

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

What is Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

Sukamal Maity, Contai vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Mohar Singh, Patiala

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Kulwaran Singh, Patiala

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Gurmeet Singh Pandher, Patiala

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

Panankattoor P A Co-Op Bank Limited, Ayyampalayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (5), Erode

Bablu Debnath, Coochbehar vs. NFAC, Delhi

Saltora Stone Crusher Owners-Welfare Association, Saltora, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Co.(Merged With Madhav Infra Project Ltd), Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Vadodara

R Kamalakannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 4(6), Chennai

Rajiv Kumar Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Meerut

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Lakshya Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Gurjeet Singh, Ladwa vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kurushetra

Smita Biswas, Jalpaiguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

Ujala Holdings Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(1), New Delhi