Hidayatullah, C.J., in TilokchandMotichand v. H.B. Munshi

1 SCC 110Reported decision1969#11951 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also reported as

2 SCR 824

Issues it is cited on

section 10(23c)(iiiad)section 10(23c)condonation of delaypersonindia

Judgments citing Hidayatullah, C.J., in TilokchandMotichand v. H.B. Munshi

Bajaj Dharamarth Trust, Hisar vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3436/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3436/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director Of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, Pan: Aaaab6657M Cpc, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. Piyushtripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

…1 ITA Nos. 3435& 3436/Del/2025 Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3436/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, PAN: AAAAB6657M CPC, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue by Sh. PiyushTripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U…

Bajaj Dharmarth Trust, Hisar vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3435/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3436/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director Of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, Pan: Aaaab6657M Cpc, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. Piyushtripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

…1 ITA Nos. 3435& 3436/Del/2025 Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3436/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, PAN: AAAAB6657M CPC, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue by Sh. PiyushTripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U…

Shree Shantanu Vidhyapeeth Society, Indore, M.P vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…d there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Each case must depend on its own facts. The question, as pointed out by Hidayatullah, C.J., in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110, 116 :(1969) 2 SCR 824] "is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit .... It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose".' (emphasis supplied)* - *17. No doubt, Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar (supra) relates to a…

Dr G Madegowda vs. State of Karnataka

WP/2943/2014HC Karnataka07 Apr 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice S.N. Satyanarayana

Section 13Section 156(3)Section 482

…perior police officer though such an officer can exercise such powers by virtue of section 36 of Cr.P.C. 29. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the matter of M.C.Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2007)1 SCC 110 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.29 wherein it is held that there is no stage during which the Investigating Officer is legally obliged to take the opinion of a public prosecutor or any authority, except the superior police officer in the rank as envisaged in section 36 of the Code. 30. The counsel having referred to th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s OCV Reinforcement Manufacturing Limited

ITTA/290/2014HC Telangana22 Aug 2017

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Inventaa Chemicals Ltd

ITTA/744/2006HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commnr. of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd

C.A. No.-003600-003600 - 2006Supreme Court02 Sept 2015
Section 11BSection 35G(3)

…ground; this is for the reason that so far as he is concerned, the decision has become final and cannot be reopened on the basis of a decision on another person’s case; this is the ratio of the opinion of Hidayatullah, C.J. in Tilokchand Motichand (1969) 1 SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824 : AIR 1970 SC 898 and we respectfully agree with it. Such a claim is maintainable both by virtue of the declaration contained in Article 265 of the Constitution of India and also by virtue of Section 72 of the Contract Act. In such cases, period of limitation would naturally be calculated taking into account the…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd

C.A. No.-003600-003600 - 2006Supreme Court02 Sept 2015
Section 11BSection 35G(3)

…ground; this is for the reason that so far as he is concerned, the decision has become final and cannot be reopened on the basis of a decision on another person’s case; this is the ratio of the opinion of Hidayatullah, C.J. in Tilokchand Motichand (1969) 1 SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824 : AIR 1970 SC 898 and we respectfully agree with it. Such a claim is maintainable both by virtue of the declaration contained in Article 265 of the Constitution of India and also by virtue of Section 72 of the Contract Act. In such cases, period of limitation would naturally be calculated taking into account the…

Hidayatullah, C.J., in TilokchandMotichand v. H.B. Munshi (1 SCC 110) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax