Jagnnath 7 M/s. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. Prasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT

171 ITR 596High Court1988#23078 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Jagnnath 7 M/s. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. Prasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT

Shri Ajaybhai Mugatrlal Pandya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/RJT/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…t when insufficient time is given and if the same could not be complied it cannot be penalized since the non compliance can be stated to be not at foe of the assessee but because of issuing authority and this itself can be termed as reasonable cause also. 1. 171 ITR 596 (Hon. Allahabad High Court) - Jagannathprasad Kanaiyalal. 2. 2 M & ROB 172 (USA) - Barber and wood. 3. 249 ITR 216 - Hon. Supreme Court - Tin Box Co. 4. 1998 AIR SC 3038 - State of UP v/s. Strugnalal 5. 78 ITR 728 (Hon. Culcatta High Court) - Pannadevi Saraoji. Hon. ITAT, Rajkot - 1TA No.176/RJT/2013 - Keshubhai G. Mandaliya.” 6. 7. We have heard…

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

…se where there is no sufficient and genuine reason for filing appeal after 285 days that too after taking decision for not filing appeal. The Ho'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagnnath 7 M/s. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. Prasad Kanhaiyalal vs. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 596 (All.), has filed such appeal is time-barred, hence delay cannot be condoned. Reference may also be had of the proposals prescribed in the case of Padmavathi vs. Kalo, AIR 1980 Kerala 173. Further, in the case of Shreemant Govindrao N. Ghorpade vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 34 (Bom.). It has been held that while deciding such issue Appellate Authority ha…

Geeta Nadkarni, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen 45, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3874/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ms. Geeta Nadkarni Vs. Asst. Cit Cen – 45 Flat No.102, Plot No.125 Mumbai Kalpataru Chs Ltd., Extn., Sixth Road Near Sthye College Vile Parle (E) Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Adfpn3602D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 54

…ng the additional evidence and for deciding on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee. a. Jagbir Singh vs. ITO (1987) 23 ITD 15 . 4 Ms. Geeta Nadkarni b. Abhay Kumar Shroff vs. ITO (1997) 63 ITD 144 c. Jagannath Prasad Kanhaiya Lal Vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 596 d. Deep Chand Kothan vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 e. Controller of Estate Duty vs. Narasamma (1980) 125 ITR 196 6. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13/11/2017 (R.C.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 13/11/2017 Karuna Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. T…