DTR 10 (J&K). (ii) Madura Coats Ltd. vs. CCE, 119 CTR 63 (SC). (iii) L. Sohanraj & Ors. v. DCIT

19 ITR 402High Court#23300 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Judgments citing DTR 10 (J&K). (ii) Madura Coats Ltd. vs. CCE, 119 CTR 63 (SC). (iii) L. Sohanraj & Ors. v. DCIT

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…Fellowship Trust (2011) 331 ITR 283 (Mad)(HC); iv. Subhash Malik Vs. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 243 (All)(HC); v. Faisal Hameed Vs. ITAT, 83 DTR 10 (J&K); vi. Sameer Ashok Joshi Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 572/PUN/2018, dated 18.01.2022; vii. OAOAM Muthiah Chettiar Vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad); viii. Laxmi Traders Vs. CIT, 168 ITR 253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors. in ITA No. 01/PUN/2023 dated 23.01.2023. 2.2 The Ld. DR, however, opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there was no sufficient cause that has been demo…

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…Fellowship Trust (2011) 331 ITR 283 (Mad)(HC); iv. Subhash Malik Vs. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 243 (All)(HC); v. Faisal Hameed Vs. ITAT, 83 DTR 10 (J&K); vi. Sameer Ashok Joshi Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 572/PUN/2018, dated 18.01.2022; vii. OAOAM Muthiah Chettiar Vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad); viii. Laxmi Traders Vs. CIT, 168 ITR 253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors. in ITA No. 01/PUN/2023 dated 23.01.2023. 2.2 The Ld. DR, however, opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there was no sufficient cause that has been demo…

Sameer Ashok Joshi, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

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

ITA 572/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.572/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sameer Ashok Joshi, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Raghukul Building, Nashik. Pimpalgaon (B), Tal. Niphad, Dist.- Nashik – 422209. Pan : Acxpj6376R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By : Shri M. J. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There Is Delay Of 445 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Delay Had Occurred On Account Of Wrong Advice Given By Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. J. Jasnani
Section 10Section 154

…ent reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal :- (i) Faisal Hameed vs. ITAT, 83 DTR 10 (J&K). (ii) Madura Coats Ltd. vs. CCE, 119 CTR 63 (SC). (iii) L. Sohanraj & Ors. vs. DCIT, 260 ITR 155 (Kar.). (iv) O.A.O.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad.). (v) Venkatadri Traders Ltd. vs. CIT, 248 ITR 681 (Mad.) 3. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR opposed the condonation of delay. 3 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the averments made in the affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit were not controverted by the ld. CIT-DR. Therefore, we satisfied that the delay in filing the pr…