How many judgments cite Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (12 SCC 693), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3).

Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy

12 SCC 693Reported decision2012#2431 most cited

What is Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy authority for?

When considering an application for condonation of delay, courts must adopt a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach, understanding 'sufficient cause' in its proper spirit to serve the ends of justice and avoid legalizing injustice.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy · 12 SCC 693 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal approach · substantial justice · Section 249(3) · Section 250 · delay in filing appeal · reasonable cause · Section 5 Limitation Act

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 69A Section 249(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 138 section 249(3)delay in filing appeal reason to believe reasonable cause section 271b condonation of delay addition under section 68 unexplained money section 142(1)section 69a section 80

Judgments citing Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy

M/S Digite Inc. Usa, Usa vs. ADIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 2415/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

…se the discretion of the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression 'sufficient cause', the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring to various earlier decisions held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; There should be a liberal, pragmatic, (i) justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise inj…

Digite Inc., Califorina vs. ADIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 4918/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

M/S. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7042/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 253(3)Section 80I

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (HSS) (ANM) JM AM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 7042/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd., ACIT, 3rd Floor, UCO Bank Building Vs. Circle-3(1), Parliament Street, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. PAN No: AAACH2439K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR ORDER Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissi…

Oranate Multi Modal Carriers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the additional/preliminary ground of appeal raised

ITA 2050/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhorient Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ito-2(2)(4), Ltd., Orient House, 4Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi Merzban Path, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaaco0797R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Heena Sheth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Sheth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ould not benefit the assessee rather the assessee would suffer legal injury and is now facing hardship and harassment. 7 ITA No. 2050 Mum 2017-Orient Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring various to earlier decisions of Superior Courts and held the following principal must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not suppos…

Sachin Pilgaonkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result the additional

ITA 5863/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Sachin Sharad Pilgaonkar Acit-11(1), B-609/610, Pearl Apartments Aayakar Bhavan, Swami Samarth Nagar, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020. Vs. Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aampp9852H Appellant Respondent Mr. Sachin Sharad Pilgaonkar Acit-11(1), B-609/610, Pearl Apartments Aayakar Bhavan, Swami Samarth Nagar, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020. Vs. Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aampp9852H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Alok J. Patil (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Alok J. Patil (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 254(1)Section 274

…the assessee is facing hardship and harassment. The assessee has also pleaded that the non filing of the appeal within period of limitation was neither intentional nor deliberate. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring various to earlier decisions of Superior ITA No. 5825 Mum 2012 & 6625 Mum 2013 -Mr. Sachin Sharad Pilgaonkar Courts and held the following principal must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing wit…

Vishwanth K Acharya, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4195/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri B. N. Rao (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…he parties. The provisions and the principle contained in the law of limitation should be adhered by the parties in its strict sense as provided under different provisions of Limitation Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693 while discussing the scope of Section 5 of Limitation Act (for condonation of delay in filing of appeal) set the following principles, which may broadly be kept in kind while deciding the application for condonation of delay: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for con…

Shoreline Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2877/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)