Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh

45 DTR 377High Court2010#20996 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 147 Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250 Section 80IC

Issues it is cited on

condonation of delay prescribed

Judgments citing Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh

MS. KENZO INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 43(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3274/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3274/Del/2024, (A.Y.2015-16)

Section 143(1)

…assessee had been callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. 7. At this point, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Improvement Trust Vs. Ujagar Singh, (2010) 6 SCC 786 (SC) and Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank vs. CBDT (2010) 45 DTR 377 (Bom) for the proposition that in the matter of condonation of delay, a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. The test of 'sufficient cause is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective of test as observed by t…

ANIL JAIN ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

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

ITA 1192/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

…assessee has been callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. 4. At this point, reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Improvement Trust Vs. Ujagar Singh, (2010) 6 SCC 786 (SC) and Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank vs. CBDT (2010) 45 DTR 377 (Bom) for the proposition that in the matter of condonation of delay, a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. The test of ‘sufficient cause’ is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective of test as observed by…

MICROTEK BALAJI POWERTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BALAJI POWERTRONICS),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 42(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2208/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Aabgina Chishti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2208/DEL/2023 Assessment Year 2015-16 M/s Microtek Balaji Powertronics ACIT Private Limited (Formerly Known as Vs. Circle-42(1) Balaji Powertronics) Delhi Udhyog Nagar, Main Rohtak Road New Delhi-110 041 TAN/PAN: AAOCM8964A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Aabgina Chishti, Advocate Sh. Gaurav Sachdeva, CA Respondent by: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 07 03 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 03 2024 O R D E R PER PRA…

BANYAN & BERRY ALLOYS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2009/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2009/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, A.R

Section 143(3)

…the assessee had been callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. At this point, reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Improvement Trust Vs. Ujagar Singh, (2010) 6 SCC 786 (SC) and Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank vs. CBDT (2010) 45 DTR 377 (Bom) for the proposition that in the matter of condonation of delay, a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. The test of ‘sufficient cause’ is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective of test as observed by…