Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

118 ITR 507Supreme Court of India1979#301 most cited

What is Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others authority for?

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

268

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi · 118 ITR 507 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal interpretation · legal advice · mala fides · gross negligence · Section 253(5) · delay in filing appeal · Supreme Court.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 147Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 148Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 80ibdelay in filing appealsection 139(4)enduring benefitcondonation of delaysection 253reasonable causesection 12aasection 24registration under section 12aerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

SHIROL PANCHAYAT SAMITT KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT SHIROL,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI

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

ITA 2765/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2765/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shirol Panchayat Samitti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karmchari Sahakari Ward 1, Ichalkaranji Patsanstha Maryadit Shirol 1 Near Panchayat Samiti Shirol, Kolhapur-416103 Maharashtra Pan:Aahas3871M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

…e deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 (SC) held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot…

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 2420/AHD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…failure to act diligently has also been recognized by courts as a valid ground in appropriate circumstances. In this regard, reliance may also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it was held that a party should not suffer for the inaction or lapse of its counsel. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 12– 31. We further note that immediately upon becoming aware of the lapse, the assessee acted with due diligence and filed the appea…

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 2413/AHD/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…failure to act diligently has also been recognized by courts as a valid ground in appropriate circumstances. In this regard, reliance may also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it was held that a party should not suffer for the inaction or lapse of its counsel. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 12– 31. We further note that immediately upon becoming aware of the lapse, the assessee acted with due diligence and filed the appea…

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 2412/AHD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…failure to act diligently has also been recognized by courts as a valid ground in appropriate circumstances. In this regard, reliance may also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it was held that a party should not suffer for the inaction or lapse of its counsel. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 12– 31. We further note that immediately upon becoming aware of the lapse, the assessee acted with due diligence and filed the appea…

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 2339/AHD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…failure to act diligently has also been recognized by courts as a valid ground in appropriate circumstances. In this regard, reliance may also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), wherein it was held that a party should not suffer for the inaction or lapse of its counsel. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 12– 31. We further note that immediately upon becoming aware of the lapse, the assessee acted with due diligence and filed the appea…

LATE VISHWAS GAJMAL SONAWANE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…e deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 (SC) held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot…

VINAY KUMAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)5, GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6684/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Vinay Kumar Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, India. Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No.Afpps6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 5

…i Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572; Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487; Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37; Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that the expression 'each day's delay must be explained', does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and it must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. vii. The Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 and many other ca…

VINAY KUMAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)(5), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6683/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Vinay Kumar Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, India. Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No.Afpps6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 5

…i Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572; Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487; Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37; Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that the expression 'each day's delay must be explained', does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and it must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. vii. The Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 and many other ca…

BILIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,MORBI, RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

ITA 742/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 742/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabab3498H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 234FSection 253(5)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Dr. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 742/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABAB3498H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27/01/2026 Date of Pron…

DYANSAWANDHANI GRAMIN BIGARSHATI SAHAKARI PATASANSHATA MARAYDIT,SHIRWAL, KHANDALA, SATARA, MAHARASHTRA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4 SATARA, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MANJUNATH MANOR, PAWAI NAKA, SATARA

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

ITA 2914/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2914/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Rajkumar Doshi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2914/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dyansawandhani Gramin Vs. Assessing Officer, Bigarshati Sahakari Ward-4, Satara Patasanshata Maryadit, Shirwal Khandala, Satara 412 801, Maharashtra PAN : AAAD9992P Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Shri Rajkumar Doshi Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual) Revenue by : Date of hearing : 14.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed again…

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 263Section 69

…ay constitute a good reason or sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal. In other words, a cause should not be dismissed due to ill-advice given by the counsel. The following case laws support this proposition: i) Concord Ins Vs. Nirmaladevi, 118 ITR 507 (SC) ii) IAC Vs. Kedarnath, 133 ITR 746 iii) Arun Vs. Twigg, 153 ITR 131 ITA No.868/Ahd/2023 [Vineetsingh Gulabsingh Rore vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 11 – iv) Avtar Vs. CIT, 133 ITR 338 Also there is no benefit accruing to the assessee by not filing appeal in the first instance itself but on the contrary the assessee has been inflicted with seriou…

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2397/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

…peal immediately and therefore it was submitted that the delay caused in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned and it was for a sufficient cause. The condonation petition further relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 167 ITR 471 and 118 ITR 507. Several other judicial precedents were relied upon and submitted that the delay is bona fides, unintentional, may be condoned taking a lenient and compassionate view. 5. The learned authorized representative reiterated the same arguments and submitted that there is a sufficient cause and therefore the delay must be condoned. 6. The learned depar…

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2396/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

…peal immediately and therefore it was submitted that the delay caused in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned and it was for a sufficient cause. The condonation petition further relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 167 ITR 471 and 118 ITR 507. Several other judicial precedents were relied upon and submitted that the delay is bona fides, unintentional, may be condoned taking a lenient and compassionate view. 5. The learned authorized representative reiterated the same arguments and submitted that there is a sufficient cause and therefore the delay must be condoned. 6. The learned depar…

HOTHI SAMAT KESHWALA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 408/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 408/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Hothi Samat Keshwala Ito, Wd – 2(4), At Visavada, Via Bokhira Porbandar, Vs. Income Tax Office, Nh-8E, Porbanadar – 360575 Porbandar Road, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Buppk0380P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 : 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order 21.10.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 5

…e status of the appeal and passing the order by learned CIT(A). Therefore, I note that because of the mistake committed by the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi &Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 694] which is a case of negligence of the counsel which misled a litigant into delayed pursuit of his remedy the default in delay was condoned. Therefore, considering these facts, I condone the delay. 6. Succinct facts are that in assessee`s case, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, was issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Porbandar, on 13.02.2018,…

ANITA RANI W/O SH. RAJENDER SINGH,CHEEKA GUHLA, KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, KAITHAL

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

ITA 781/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…failed to appreciate that the mistake of the counsel should not result in denial of justice to the assessee/appellant, in view of the well-settled principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)], where it was held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. (v) That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the notice was invalid on the ground that notice u/s 148 was never served on the assessee. Further, the appellant also has a strong case on merits, and the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudic…

TRENDSET SUMANJALI WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 935/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.935/Hyd/2025 [U/Sec.12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961] Trendset Sumanjali The Commissioner Of Welfare Association, Income Tax (Exemptions), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaiat3303J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, CIT-DR
Section 12A

…delay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507.” 5. The Department has not disputed this fact as explained by the assessee that the impugned order was not served on the assessee either physically or through email and, therefore, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a ‘sufficient reason’ for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is pertinent to note that the servi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessee:- (1) N.Balkrishnan V/s. M. Krishnamurty (1988) 7 SCC 125 (2) Collector of Land Acquisition V/s MST Katiji & Others (1987)167 ITR 471(SC) (3) Mata Din V/s. A. Narayan (AIR 1970 (SC) 1953) (4) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Nirmala Devi (118 ITR 507)-SC 8. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application under S.12A of the Act, as made by the assessee in ground No.1. We accordingly direct that the registration be granted to the assessee with effect from 1.4.2002.” 37. We find pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the subject assessment…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessee:- (1) N.Balkrishnan V/s. M. Krishnamurty (1988) 7 SCC 125 (2) Collector of Land Acquisition V/s MST Katiji & Others (1987)167 ITR 471(SC) (3) Mata Din V/s. A. Narayan (AIR 1970 (SC) 1953) (4) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Nirmala Devi (118 ITR 507)-SC 8. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application under S.12A of the Act, as made by the assessee in ground No.1. We accordingly direct that the registration be granted to the assessee with effect from 1.4.2002.” 37. We find pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the subject assessment…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessee:- (1) N.Balkrishnan V/s. M. Krishnamurty (1988) 7 SCC 125 (2) Collector of Land Acquisition V/s MST Katiji & Others (1987)167 ITR 471(SC) (3) Mata Din V/s. A. Narayan (AIR 1970 (SC) 1953) (4) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Nirmala Devi (118 ITR 507)-SC 8. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application under S.12A of the Act, as made by the assessee in ground No.1. We accordingly direct that the registration be granted to the assessee with effect from 1.4.2002.” 37. We find pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the subject assessment…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessee:- (1) N.Balkrishnan V/s. M. Krishnamurty (1988) 7 SCC 125 (2) Collector of Land Acquisition V/s MST Katiji & Others (1987)167 ITR 471(SC) (3) Mata Din V/s. A. Narayan (AIR 1970 (SC) 1953) (4) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Nirmala Devi (118 ITR 507)-SC 8. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application under S.12A of the Act, as made by the assessee in ground No.1. We accordingly direct that the registration be granted to the assessee with effect from 1.4.2002.” 37. We find pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the subject assessment…

Showing 1–20 of 268 · Page 1 of 14

...
Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others (118 ITR 507) — Cited in 268 Judgments | BharatTax