How many judgments cite Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.?

118 judgments on BharatTax cite Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (104 ITD 149), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 144, Section 80P(2)(d), Section 154, Section 5 of Limitation Act, Section 80P.

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.

104 ITD 149Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#906 most cited

What is Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. authority for?

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

118

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jt. CIT v. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. · 104 ITD 149 · Section 5 Limitation Act · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · assessee negligence · inaction · misplaced order · Section 249 · Section 253

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 144 Section 80P(2)(d)Section 154 Section 5 of Limitation Act Section 80P Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(2)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 248 section 80p(2)(c)section 249(3)section 253(3)delay in filing appeal reasoned order section 249 mli section 80p(2)assessee in default section 80p condonation of delay

Judgments citing Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7339/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 245

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Income-tax Officer 42(2)(4), Shaikh, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Vs. 240/E, 70, Bori Chawl, Dr. B Kurla Complex, A Rd., Adam Mistry Lane, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. BHSPS 0214 G Appellant Respondent SA No. 164 & 163/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Income-tax Officer 42(2)(4), Shaikh, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandr…

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7338/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 245

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…tion, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. [JCIT Vs Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai) 104 ITD 149 followed]. 3.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for an abnormal delay of around 01 years and 7 months. Such a delay cannot be condoned as condonation in the present case would not be in accordance with the exposition emanating out of the Hon’ble apex Court and Hon’ble High Court decisions. It will rather be grave prejudice to the…

RAIN CEMENTS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

…e the delay of 502 days in filing the appeal because there was no satisfactory or reasonable explanation rendered for condonation of delay. 10. In the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range I, Chennai v. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. [2007] 104 ITD 149 (CHENNAI) (TM) IN THE ITAT 11 ITA.No.540/Hyd./2025 CHENNAI BENCH 'B' (THIRD MEMBER) on AUGUST 11, 2006 held that "8. In the present case I find that the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of Shri M.L.S. Rao, Director of the company. In the said affidavit Mr. Rao stated that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was mi…

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

ITA 565/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 69A

…upported by cogent and Proper evidence.” Now, it is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., [2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai)(TM) delay was not condoned by the Hon'ble ITAT as it was due to negligence and inaction on part of appellant which could have very well be avoided by exercise of due care and attention. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of ITO V. Hemraj Onkarji Mali, [2009] 311 ITR (AT) 416 (Indore) decided that there was no reasonable cause for delay on part of…

SOLEONE TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 603/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.603/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Soleone Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 114, Anandmilan Complex, Opp. Income Tax, Jain Derasar, Navrangpura, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAPCS5586D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.07.2025 28.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed b…

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

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

ITA 96/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 96/Srt/2025& 221/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Runi Impex, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 32, Madhav Kung Society, Income Tax, Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Circle-3(2), Surat [PAN No.AAMFR2340A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Satish Mody, AR Respondent by: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, CIT DR 16.07.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 18.07.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are appeals file…

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2), SURAT

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

ITA 221/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

MOGAR PARTAPORE VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 91/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 86 to 89/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandli Ltd., Ward-3, At & PO: Navagam, Navsari District-Navsari-396445 [PAN No.AAAAN3020A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 91/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Income Tax, At & PO: Mogar, Navsari Circle, District-Navsari-396445 N…

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 89/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 86 to 89/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandli Ltd., Ward-3, At & PO: Navagam, Navsari District-Navsari-396445 [PAN No.AAAAN3020A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 91/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Income Tax, At & PO: Mogar, Navsari Circle, District-Navsari-396445 N…

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 88/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 86 to 89/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandli Ltd., Ward-3, At & PO: Navagam, Navsari District-Navsari-396445 [PAN No.AAAAN3020A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 91/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Income Tax, At & PO: Mogar, Navsari Circle, District-Navsari-396445 N…

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 87/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 86 to 89/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandli Ltd., Ward-3, At & PO: Navagam, Navsari District-Navsari-396445 [PAN No.AAAAN3020A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 91/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Income Tax, At & PO: Mogar, Navsari Circle, District-Navsari-396445 N…

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 86/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 86 to 89/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandli Ltd., Ward-3, At & PO: Navagam, Navsari District-Navsari-396445 [PAN No.AAAAN3020A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 91/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Income Tax, At & PO: Mogar, Navsari Circle, District-Navsari-396445 N…

DIPIKA AQUA FARM,OLPAD vs. ADDL JCIT (A)-11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 948/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Saraiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 5

…n Industries [2022] 136 taxmann.com 328 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay of 520 days in filing special leave petition cannot be condoned without satisfactory explanation and hence, dismissed. In the case of Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd.[2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal could not be…

UMASHANKAR BHAGWATI PATWA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE (DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4893/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali ParekhFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR AR

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Umashankar Bhagwati Income Tax Patwa Department 39/2845 Abhyudaya Nagar, National E- G D Ambedkar Marg, Assessment Centre Kalachowki (DCIT, Circle Vs. Mumbai - 400033 20(1)) PAN: ABPPP2133F DCIT, Circle 20(1), 113, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh Parel Mumbai – 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Mitali Parekh Revenue by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR AR Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

…advice when engaging in legal proceedings. It also underlines the principle that ignorance or illiteracy of the law is not an excuse, 7.9 In the case of Ramlal and others Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd (AIR 1962 SC 361), Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd (ITAT Chennai 104 ITD 149) and Madhu Dadha (Madras 317 ITR 458) it has been held that party has to show reason for delay on the last date of limitation period and thereafter for each day. Further, condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Court has to exercise the discretionary Jurisdiction. 7.10 In the case of Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. [2006] 98 ITD 200, Hon…

VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 774/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT

Section 249(3)

…igour and effective consequences". In this case, the ITAT refused to condone delay of 5 days in filing appeal by Revenue. The Punjab & Haryana High Court confirmed the decision stating as above. 10.7 In case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., [2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai)(TM) delay was not condoned by the Hon'ble ITAT as it was due to negligence and inaction on part of appellant which could have very well be avoided by exercise of due care and attention. 10.8 Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ITO V. Hemraj Onkarji Mali, [2007] 108 TTJ 1061 ITD 513(Indore) decided that there was no reasonable cause for delay on…

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

ITA 549/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 70

…upported by cogent and proper evidence." Now, it is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., [2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai)(TM) delay was not condoned by the Hon'ble ITAT as it was due to negligence and inaction on part of appellant which could have very well be avoided by exercise of due care and attention. Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ITO V. Hemraj Onkarji Mali, [2009] 311 ITR (AT) 416 (Indore) decided that there was no reasonable cause for delay on part of…

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 80P

…limitation. Therefore, the argument that the appellant did not know the true legal position is not one that can be accepted in law..." 3.3 Further, coordinate bench of Chennai (Third Member) in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors 8v Farm Equipments Ltd. reported in 104 ITD 149, wherein held as follows:- "A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor, so the case calls for a more cautious approach, in the latter case, no such consideration may arise…

MUDHOL PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITA,MUDHOL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2 , BAGALKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 767/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamita Gokul Complex, Gandhi Circle Ito Mudhol Vs. Ward-2 Karnataka 587 313 Bagalkot

For Appellant: Shri Veeranna M. Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250

…ITA No.767/Bang/2023 M/s. Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Mudhol IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamita Gokul Complex, Gandhi Circle ITO Mudhol Vs. Ward-2 Karnataka 587 313 Bagalkot PAN NO : AAEAM7882P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Veeranna M. Murgod, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 26.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by asses…

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6