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)

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 1464/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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…

Astec Life Sciences Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 955/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: S/s. Jitendra Jain, Gopal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…peal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained see Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd; AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889 + AIR 1960 SC 260, 265- 66; J.B. Advani & Co. Pro Ltd. v. R.D. Shah, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC); Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; Soorajmull Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre & Products, AIR 1969 Ca1.381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi v. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal.204]. Sufficient cause has to be shown in respect of falling within the 8 M/s. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. prescribed statutory period [see Baliram Prasad v. Union of India, (1…

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…of the taxpayers. In matter of condonation of delay both have to show a sufficient cause which a prudent person can believe. In the case under consideration, same is absent. (x) 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 an…

Rakhi A Sawant, Mumbai vs. CIT -11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2966/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2965 & 2966/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ms.Rakhi Sawant, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), , M/S Chandravijay Shah & Vs. Room No. 438, 4Th Floor, Co., Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountant, M K Road, 401, Rainbow Chambers, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Nr. Mtnl, Kandivili (W), Mumbai-400067 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aumps5377C अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No.2966/Mum/2013. 3. This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order

Section 263

…ained. A) (1994) 92 STC 165, 167 (Punjab); B) DCM Ltd V/s State of Tamil Nadu (1995) 96 STC 263, 264 (Madras); C) Madhu Dadha V/s ACIT (317 ITR 458) (Mad); D) Union of India V/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd 1988 (38) ELT 739; and E) J B Advani and Co Ltd V/s CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). 6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing the present appeal. Even though earlier Chartered Accountant did not co-operate with her, yet, she required to file appeal in a reasonable time. The delay of few days for non co-operation of the Authorized Representative/CA…

Rakhi A Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2965 & 2966/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ms.Rakhi Sawant, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), , M/S Chandravijay Shah & Vs. Room No. 438, 4Th Floor, Co., Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountant, M K Road, 401, Rainbow Chambers, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Nr. Mtnl, Kandivili (W), Mumbai-400067 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aumps5377C अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No.2966/Mum/2013. 3. This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order

Section 263

…ained. A) (1994) 92 STC 165, 167 (Punjab); B) DCM Ltd V/s State of Tamil Nadu (1995) 96 STC 263, 264 (Madras); C) Madhu Dadha V/s ACIT (317 ITR 458) (Mad); D) Union of India V/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd 1988 (38) ELT 739; and E) J B Advani and Co Ltd V/s CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). 6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing the present appeal. Even though earlier Chartered Accountant did not co-operate with her, yet, she required to file appeal in a reasonable time. The delay of few days for non co-operation of the Authorized Representative/CA…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sharavathy Conductors (P) Ltd

WA/18021/2011HC Karnataka27 Aug 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(1)(a)Section 264Section 4Section 80HSection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 18021/2011 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax., Bangalore-III, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore-1. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax., Circle-12(2), No. 14/3, R.P. Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Opp. RBI., Bangalore-1. …APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: M/s. Sharavathy Conductors (P) Ltd., By its Managing Director, Sri.…

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