Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal

8 SCC 532Supreme Court of India2000#8175 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPS,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 629/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S. SHIR JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 628/CHNY/2021[2014-15-4TH QTR-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S SHRI JAJANI HOMES,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT-CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 627/CHNY/2021[2013-14-4TD QTR.)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S. SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 626/CHNY/2021[2013-14(III QTR-26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,COC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 625/CHNY/2021[2013-2014-II QTR.-26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S. SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 624/CHNY/2021[2013-14-1ST QTR-26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M//S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 623/CHNY/2021[2013-14-(4TH QTR-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT LTD,PONDICHEYYA vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 622/CHNY/2021[2013-14 )3RDQTR-24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 621/CHNY/2021[2013-14(II Qtr.-24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S SHRI JANAI HOMES PVT. LTD,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 620/CHNY/2021[2013-14(1 QTR-24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…lied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of t…

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 98/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…mited reported in 326 ITR 156 (P&H) • Ramshila Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 383 ITR 546 (Calcutta) • PCIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I)(P.) Ltd. reported in 415 ITR 294 (Bombay) • State Bank of India Vs. Chandra Govindji(Km.) reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532 (SC) • GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72 (SC) • P.N. Eswara Iyer and Ors. Vs.…

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 97/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…mited reported in 326 ITR 156 (P&H) • Ramshila Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 383 ITR 546 (Calcutta) • PCIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I)(P.) Ltd. reported in 415 ITR 294 (Bombay) • State Bank of India Vs. Chandra Govindji(Km.) reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532 (SC) • GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72 (SC) • P.N. Eswara Iyer and Ors. Vs.…

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 96/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…mited reported in 326 ITR 156 (P&H) • Ramshila Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 383 ITR 546 (Calcutta) • PCIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I)(P.) Ltd. reported in 415 ITR 294 (Bombay) • State Bank of India Vs. Chandra Govindji(Km.) reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532 (SC) • GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72 (SC) • P.N. Eswara Iyer and Ors. Vs.…

RAJESH JASOTANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 286/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 234BSection 54

…on of delay cannot claim it as a matter of right. The provision of limitation has to be given effect with all its vigour. Nevertheless, may harshly affect the particular party. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora V Ganeshi Lal (1999) 8 SCC 532 has observed as under:- “There is no gain saying that the law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribed. The courts cannot extent the period of limitation on equitable grounds.” 5.4 The averments of the application of condonation of delay as well as affidavits o…