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.

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 149)

Smt Smt. Fazila Pradhan, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 294/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash –

Section 253Section 253(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरणकरण न्यायपीठयपीठ रायपुरयपुर में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR श्री रवीश सूद , न्यायिक सदस्य, एवं श्री अरुण खोडपिया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.294 & 295/RPR/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 v. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [PAN: AKPPP 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./IT…

Srd Management Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

…nable diligence. 5. [Whether the appellant has shown reason for delay on the last date of limitation period and thereafter for each day?] 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 MadhuDadha (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. 6 Whether the inordinate delay was not due to negligence and inaction on the…

Shri Chintan Kanjibhai Katariya, Anjar-Kutch vs. The ITO Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 54/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

…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…

Muqeem Ahmad, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1728/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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

…lt that appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision in the case of Rankak & Ors, Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, JCIT vs Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149, Madhu Dadha vs ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. Considering above facts and circumstances this appeal preferred by the appellant is treated as non-est being defective.” 9. I have considered the facts on record. It is not the case of Revenue that by filing appeal, the assessee has taken any advantage. But on the contrary, the assessee has put himself into…

Muqeem Ahmad, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1727/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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

…lt that appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision in the case of Rankak & Ors, Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, JCIT vs Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149, Madhu Dadha vs ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. Considering above facts and circumstances this appeal preferred by the appellant is treated as non-est being defective.” 9. I have considered the facts on record. It is not the case of Revenue that by filing appeal, the assessee has taken any advantage. But on the contrary, the assessee has put himself into…

M/S. Kaypee Exporters, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 278/BANG/2023[Block Period 01.04.1997 to 03.04.2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 1997-2003

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 158B

…ed position of law that it is only marginal delays that can be condoned, and not inordinate delays running into several years. We may at this juncture, refer to the Third Member decision of Tribunal (Chennai) in the case of Jt. CIT v/s. Tractors & Farms Ltd. (104 ITD 149)-TM, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and inordinate delay, it has been observed, vide head-note on page 150 of the Reports (104 ITD) 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…

M/S the Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-Op Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. ITO Ward 1, Kasargod

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 909/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

…courts, bringing to the fore different aspects of the application of law on limitation in judicial and quasi judicial proceedings, viz.: 1. Rankak&Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 and JCIT vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments ltd. (ITAT, Chennai - TM) 104 ITD 149 - Party has to show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day thereafter - Condonation is not a matter of right - Court has to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. 2. Brij Inders Singh vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266, M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak AIR 193…

M/S the Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-Op Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. ITO Ward -1, Kasargod

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

…courts, bringing to the fore different aspects of the application of law on limitation in judicial and quasi judicial proceedings, viz.: 1. Rankak&Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 and JCIT vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments ltd. (ITAT, Chennai - TM) 104 ITD 149 - Party has to show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and thereafter for each day thereafter - Condonation is not a matter of right - Court has to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. 2. Brij Inders Singh vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156, Baroda Rayon Copn. Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266, M. Krishna Rao D. Phalke vs. Trimbak AIR 193…

Rajpal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward -2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 392/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.392/DEL/2023 Assessment Year 2009-10 Rajpal, v. The Income Tax Officer, S/o Shri Mevaram, Ward-2(3)(1), House No.35, Ibrahimpur, Bulandshahr. Junedpur Maujpur, Khurja Junction, Distt. Bulandshahr. TAN/PAN: CWPPR7506D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against…

M/S. Snr Rural Education Trust, Puttur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1161/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

…the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The CIT(A) held that the assessee has offered insufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and relying on the decisions of CIT v Ram Mohan Kabra (P&H), JCIT v. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. [2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai) (TM), ITO v. Hemraj Onkarji Mali [2007] 108 TTJ 1061 (Indore), Madhu Dadha v. ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 458 (Mad), the CIT(A) denied condonation of inordinate delay of 523 days. The assessee is appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. Before us the ld AR submitted that the assessee is used to receiving the correspondenc…

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 172/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.170, 171 & 172/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Shyam Sundar Agrawal Prop. Of M/S. Vishnu Shallac Factory, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Aegpa8337L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA i/bFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 144

…ls. 8 Shyam Sunder Agrawal Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ITA Nos.170 to 172/RPR/2022 7. Also, I may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a fine distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: “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 cal…

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 171/RPR/2022[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.170, 171 & 172/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Shyam Sundar Agrawal Prop. Of M/S. Vishnu Shallac Factory, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Aegpa8337L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA i/bFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 144

…ls. 8 Shyam Sunder Agrawal Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ITA Nos.170 to 172/RPR/2022 7. Also, I may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a fine distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: “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 cal…

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 170/RPR/2022[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.170, 171 & 172/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Shyam Sundar Agrawal Prop. Of M/S. Vishnu Shallac Factory, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Aegpa8337L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA i/bFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 144

…ls. 8 Shyam Sunder Agrawal Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ITA Nos.170 to 172/RPR/2022 7. Also, I may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a fine distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: “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 cal…

M/S. Rosy Royal Minerals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 535/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271(1)(c)

…cooking stories that the old CA did not advice them to file further appeal and they are unaware of the consequences of ex-parte order of CIT[A). In this regard reliance may be placed on following judgments: 1. JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., [2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai)(TM). 2. Madhu Dadha Vs. ACJT, [2009] 317 ITR 458 (Mad.) 11. Considering the facts mentioned above the undersigned requests that the condonation application may not be entertained and should be rejected.” 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. During the course of hearing, the Ld. A…

Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, HUF, Janjgir Champa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 60/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…the substantial delay of 339 days involved in preferring of the present appeal. 7. Also, I may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Chennai in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: “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 fo…

Shri. Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234DSection 250

…ITA No.820/Bang/2022 Shri Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur No.3130/33-2, 2nd Cross, C Block Gayathri Nagar ITO Ward 9(2) Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Bangalore PAN NO : AASPU0922F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pranav Krishna, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Hearing : 27.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is…

Atul Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 378/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…show reasons of delay on last day of limitation and thereafter for each day. The ld. Commissioner ultimately while relying upon the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of JCIT vs. Tractors Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITA Chennai-TM), 104 ITD 149, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ronkak&Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 and Madras High Court in the case of MadhuDadha vs. ACIT, 31 ITR 458, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine by holding the same as non-est being defective. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Despit…

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1392/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ent in support of the delay in filing the Cross objection by 880 days. In our considered view, in the instant facts, the Department has not brought on record any cogent reason for delay in filing of appeal. 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…

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1391/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ent in support of the delay in filing the Cross objection by 880 days. In our considered view, in the instant facts, the Department has not brought on record any cogent reason for delay in filing of appeal. 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…

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1390/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ent in support of the delay in filing the Cross objection by 880 days. In our considered view, in the instant facts, the Department has not brought on record any cogent reason for delay in filing of appeal. 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…

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Smt Smt. Fazila Pradhan, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur (Cg)

Srd Management Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

Shri Chintan Kanjibhai Katariya, Anjar-Kutch vs. The ITO Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

Muqeem Ahmad, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

Muqeem Ahmad, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

M/S. Kaypee Exporters, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore

M/S the Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-Op Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. ITO Ward 1, Kasargod

M/S the Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-Op Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. ITO Ward -1, Kasargod

Rajpal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward -2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

M/S. Snr Rural Education Trust, Puttur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

M/S. Rosy Royal Minerals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, HUF, Janjgir Champa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

Shri. Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bengaluru

Atul Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad