Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu

96 STC 263Reported decision1995#18527 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(d)

Judgments citing Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 1388/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 270A

…g delay and whether such\ncause is acceptable or not. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal cannot condone\nthe delay without asking the party concerned to explain the delay, by giving its own\nreason for the delay [DCM Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1995) 96 STC 263, 264\n(Madras)].\n\n5.5 In this regard, it will be relevant to examine how the Courts have dealt with\nsimilar cases. A reference may be made to decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras\nin the case of Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT reported 317 ITR 458 (Mad); (2010) 186\nTaxmann 8 (Madras). In this case, there was delay of 558 days in filing appeal. The\nH…

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ning delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal cannot condone the delay without asking the party concerned to explain the delay, by giving its own reason for the delay [DCM Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1995) 96 STC 263, 264 (Madras)]. 5.5 In this regard, it will be relevant to examine how the Courts have dealt with similar cases. A reference may be made to decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT reported 317 ITR 458 (Mad); (2010) 186 Taxmann 8 (Madras). In this case, there was delay of 558 days in filing appeal. The Hon'ble…

MODY INTERIORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-16 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6709/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Abhishekh JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhele
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ing delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. In fiwit view of the matter, the Tribunal cannot condone the delay without asking the party concerned to explain the delay, by giving its own reason for the delay [DCM Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1995) 96 STC 263, 264 (Madras)]. ………… On the similar matter and facts, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Chaudhury Construction AIR 1988 Raj. 123 held - "that in the absence of material particulars as to why delay had been caused, the delay could not be condoned by merely accepting the explanation that the delay occurred in the…

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

…DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the following case laws and has pleaded that the delay cannot be condoned unless and until the cause for condonation of delay is explained. 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 Ac…

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

…DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the following case laws and has pleaded that the delay cannot be condoned unless and until the cause for condonation of delay is explained. 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 Ac…

Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (96 STC 263) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax