(i) Collection, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Others

167 ITR 147Supreme Court of India1987#23006 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)section 41delay in filing appealsection 132(4)scrutiny assessmentcondonation of delaysection 132appeal before the tribunalsection 13opportunity of being heardsection 143company

Judgments citing (i) Collection, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Others

M/S. Hassan Power Supply Company Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 500/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate/Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…an appeal, there arose a delay of about 32 days in filing this present appeal before this Hon'ble appellate authority.” 4. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the following cases: (i) Collection, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 147 (SC). (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 (SC). (iii) Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank and Others (2000) 9 SC cases 733. 5. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay by stating that the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee and that there e…

M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 499/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. No.1, Grant Road, Cunningham Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 001. Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaacb 8624N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(OSD)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…an appeal, there arose a delay of about 32 days in filing this present appeal before this Hon'ble appellate authority.” 4. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the following cases: (i) Collection, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 147 (SC). (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 (SC). (iii) Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank and Others (2000) 9 SC cases 733. 5. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay by stating that the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee and that there e…

M/S. Kanna Investments Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 490/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kanna Investments Ltd., Dcit, Vs. No.17, Sankey Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaack 8373 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…an appeal, there arose a delay of about 32 days in filing this present appeal before this Hon'ble appellate authority.” 4. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the following cases: (i) Collection, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 147 (SC). (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 (SC). (iii) Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank and Others (2000) 9 SC cases 733. 5. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay by stating that the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee and that there e…