What is J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The delay in filing an appeal must be explained with a sufficient cause for the entire period. The explanation must be real, reasonable, and fit the specific facts and circumstances of the case to warrant condonation.

How many judgments cite J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (72 ITR 395), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 249(3), Section 144, Section 271(1)(c).

J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (72 ITR 395)

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2079/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…50 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota (vi) Requirement of sufficient cause for delay cannot be ignored, and it becomes very important and significant when the delay is inordinate and abnormal. (vii) In the matter of J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary. In other words what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one, but it should be real and sufficiently reasonable. It would not be any…

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2050/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…50 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota (vi) Requirement of sufficient cause for delay cannot be ignored, and it becomes very important and significant when the delay is inordinate and abnormal. (vii) In the matter of J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary. In other words what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one, but it should be real and sufficiently reasonable. It would not be any…

SUBHA HARIHARAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1154/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Subha Hariharan Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 4 B 503/504, Ward 35(3)(4), Dosti Elite Tower -B Mumbai Vs. Next To Sion Telephone Exchange Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 (Pan: Acmph5705R) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocate Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071531320(1), Dated 24.12.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 35(3)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 24/12/2024 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity To The Petitioner To Represent Its Case.

For Appellant: Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

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

…n is not non-suited on mere technicalities. Chamanlal Brothers Pa Ltd. vs Punjab State ((1961)12 STC 643 (Punj)]. The power to condone delay is discretionary, but the discretion either way should be judicially exercised. Adwani & Co. (JB) Ltd. vs. CIT [(1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC)]. In the context of Limitation Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Ac- quisition vs. Khatiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC)] has observed that the expression 'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serve the ends of justice. 7. The word 'sufficient cause' appearing…

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…, negligently caused, cannot be condoned. (vi) Requirement of sufficient cause for delay cannot be ignored and it becomes very important and significant when the delay is inordinate and abnormal. (vii) In the matter of J.B. Advani& Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary. In other words what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one but it should be real and sufficiently explained reasonable. It would no…

SARSWATI BAL KALYAN SAMITI,WAIDHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

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

ITA 45/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Sarswati Bal Kalyan V. Income Tax Officer, Samiti Mandla Ward, Mandla Waidhan Distt – Singrauli (Mp)- Central Revenue Annexe 486886. Building, Jabalpur- 482001. Pan:Aadas7349Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (DR)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 263Section 69A

…s (India) Private Ltd vs. ACIT (2019): 102 com 395 (Bombay) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vama Apparels (India) (P) Ltd vs. ACIT held that ‘where assessee filed appeal before High Court with a delay JB Advani & Co. (P) Ltd vs. R.D. Shah, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (S. C) dated 22.8.1968. of 507 days and Sought condonation of delay stating that ex-employee of assessee who received order of Tribunal put it in his drawer and left company without informing anybody about such orders and it was only about a month before filing of instant appeal when his substitute new employee found papers from drawer, there was…

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

ITA 2761/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(3)

…l. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal." In the case of J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary. What is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded must fit in the facts and circumstances of the given case and the explanation offered regarding the delay occasione…

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 696/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 248Section 249(2)Section 69A

…er, negligently caused, cannot be condoned. vi. Requirement of sufficient cause for delay cannot be ignored and it becomes very important and significant when the delay is inordinate and abnormal. vii. In the matter of J.B. Advani& Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary. In other words what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause Pleaded should not only be a probable one but it should be real and sufficiently reasonable. It would not be any s…

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 185/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 184 & 185/JP/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani Plot No. 159 Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur Vs. बनाम Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jaipur/ Income Tax Officer, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BXBPS 3852 Η अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: राजस्…

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 184/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 184 & 185/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 cuke Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani Income Tax Officer Vs. Plot No. 159 Kanwar Nagar, Ward-1(1), Jaipur/ Jaipur Income Tax Officer, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BXBPS 3852 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Vedant A…

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 80P

….7696 of 2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunanthapur Nafar Academy and others – Civil Appeal Nos.8183 – 8184 of 2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.D. Shah, CIT reported in (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). • Vama Apparels (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs. ACIT – reported in (1019) 102 taxmann.com 398 (Bombay). • Shankar Appayya Govarkar Vs. Nurudappa Basappa Maili and others reported in (1998) II (1998) ACC 575 – Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 8.1 Ld. DR filed a Chart showing the delay in filing the appeal, assessment year wise, which is to the following e…

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 363/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 80P

….7696 of 2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunanthapur Nafar Academy and others – Civil Appeal Nos.8183 – 8184 of 2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.D. Shah, CIT reported in (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). • Vama Apparels (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs. ACIT – reported in (1019) 102 taxmann.com 398 (Bombay). • Shankar Appayya Govarkar Vs. Nurudappa Basappa Maili and others reported in (1998) II (1998) ACC 575 – Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 8.1 Ld. DR filed a Chart showing the delay in filing the appeal, assessment year wise, which is to the following e…

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 362/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 80P

….7696 of 2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunanthapur Nafar Academy and others – Civil Appeal Nos.8183 – 8184 of 2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.D. Shah, CIT reported in (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). • Vama Apparels (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs. ACIT – reported in (1019) 102 taxmann.com 398 (Bombay). • Shankar Appayya Govarkar Vs. Nurudappa Basappa Maili and others reported in (1998) II (1998) ACC 575 – Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 8.1 Ld. DR filed a Chart showing the delay in filing the appeal, assessment year wise, which is to the following e…

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 361/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 80P

….7696 of 2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunanthapur Nafar Academy and others – Civil Appeal Nos.8183 – 8184 of 2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.D. Shah, CIT reported in (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). • Vama Apparels (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs. ACIT – reported in (1019) 102 taxmann.com 398 (Bombay). • Shankar Appayya Govarkar Vs. Nurudappa Basappa Maili and others reported in (1998) II (1998) ACC 575 – Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 8.1 Ld. DR filed a Chart showing the delay in filing the appeal, assessment year wise, which is to the following e…

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 360/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 80P

….7696 of 2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunanthapur Nafar Academy and others – Civil Appeal Nos.8183 – 8184 of 2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. • J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.D. Shah, CIT reported in (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). • Vama Apparels (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs. ACIT – reported in (1019) 102 taxmann.com 398 (Bombay). • Shankar Appayya Govarkar Vs. Nurudappa Basappa Maili and others reported in (1998) II (1998) ACC 575 – Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 8.1 Ld. DR filed a Chart showing the delay in filing the appeal, assessment year wise, which is to the following e…

S.MUTHUSAMY(HUF),NAMAKKAL vs. TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 543/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 30.06.2022

Section 200ASection 234E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/. ITA No.543/Chny/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) S.Muthusamy, (HUF) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income 27, Karuppannan Street, S.P.Pudur Tax, Namakkal Town Central Processing Cell –TDS, Namakkal Dist. PIN: 637 001 Ghaziabad PAN: AACHS 6190K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant by…

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

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

ITA 324/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 54Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@IT(IT)A. No. 324/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Rajni Vinod Malhotra Commissioner of Income 1020 Agarshan Nagar, Ganganagar, Vs. Tax Appeals, Shri Ganganagar-335001. CIT(A), Delhi-42. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BHBPM 0405 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri…

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld

Section 2(24)

…antial justice. Similar distinction has been sought in the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in ACIT v. Ranbir Chemicals {114 ITD 121 (Chd)} as well as in the decision in CIT v. Grindlays Bank {208 ITR 700 (Cal.)}. In the case of J. B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT {72 ITR 395 (SC)}, the assessee did not explain the delay for part of the period. 5.6 While distinguishing all these decisions, Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Anand Kumar Jain v. ITO {ITA No.4192/Mum/2012 dated 20/08/2019} wherein the appeal was filed after a delay of 420 days. In the said case, the issue involved was with re…

M/S. TRAINED BRAIN EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1661/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Trained Brain Education Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 116/3A, Krishna Reddy Building, Income Tax, Sgr Dental College Building, Cpc (Tds), Near Railway Gate, Ghaziabad. Sgr Dental College Road, Munne Kolala, Marathalli Po, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aadct 1220 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) - 3, Bengaluru, Dated 02.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In Addition To Various Grounds Raised By The Assessee On Merit, This Is One Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT

…stored back to file of CIT(A) for a decision on merit. As against this, learned DR of Revenue supported the order of CIT(A). He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of J. V Advani and Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT as reported in 72 ITR 395 (SC). He also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabair Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil as reported in 253 ITR 798 (SC). At this juncture, the Bench pointed out that the second judgment cited by learned DR of the Revenue is not in the proceedings under IT Act, 1961 and…

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1466/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

Section 201(1)

…ry remedies need existence of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the appellant has to prove that abnormal circumstances really and factually existed in its particular case. It may be mentioned that in the case of J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that explanation of delay, for the entire period is necessary. In other words, what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one but it should be real and sufficiently reasonable. It would not be a…

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1467/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 201(1)Section 206A

…remedies need existence of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the appellant has to prove that abnormal circumstances really and factually existed in its particular case. It may be mentioned that in the case of J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that explanation of delay, for the entire period is necessary. In other words, what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one but it should be real and sufficiently reasonable. It would not be…

J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

What is J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

SUBHA HARIHARAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SARSWATI BAL KALYAN SAMITI,WAIDHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

S.MUTHUSAMY(HUF),NAMAKKAL vs. TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

M/S. TRAINED BRAIN EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR