Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Ors AIR 1353, 1987 SCR (2) 387

124 STC 124High Court2001#22247 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 131 Section 133A Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148

Judgments citing Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Ors AIR 1353, 1987 SCR (2) 387

Jasmine Zubin Shroff, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2380/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2380/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Jasmine Zubin Shroff V The Income Tax (Through Legal Heir Zubin K S Officer, Shroff), Ward-7(1), Pune. 826/C No.5, Anklesharia Blocks, Dastur Meher Road, Camp, Pune - 411001. Pan:Basps7144E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B C Malakar Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Legal Heir Of Late Jasmine Z. Shroff Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 19.12.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The

Section 144Section 250

…ided. Ld.AR submitted that therefore, Assessment Order is bad in law. 2.3 Ld.AR for the Assessee relied on the following case laws : “i. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors AIR 1353, 1987 SCR (2) 387 ii. Vasu & Company Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 124 STC 124 (Ker) : iii. Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Sing & Other (Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 dated 9/06/2010), the Hon'ble Supreme Court. iv. CIT(exemptions) Pune Vs. Progressive Education Society (2019) 102 Taxman. Com 402 (SC) In this case, the delay was condoned for 362 days directing to hear the appeal on merit. V. Karanjia Terminal & Logistics (P) Ltd. […

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

…The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.” Further reliance was placed upon the decision and observation made therein by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Vasu & Co. Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 124 STC 124 (Ker.). "We are of the view that it is not necessary in all cases to give evidence regarding the delay in filing appeals. The affidavits are documents of evidence. On the basis of the affidavits, if the Court is satisfied that sufficient explanation has been given for condoning delay, then the affidavit can be accepted as evidence. If proof of wh…

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

…e. 4 Mohd. Gafuruddin F.Siddique 2.2. We have also considered the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, land acquisition vs Kataji 167 ITR 471, (SC), L. Balkrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vasue & Company vs State of Kerala (2001) 124 STC 124 (Kerala.) We have perused the reasons mentioned by the assessee in its application for condonotion of delay along with the cited cases. Before us, the assessee has relied upon the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case 167 ITR 471(SC) Collector, land Acquisition vs Katiji. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “When subs…