Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan

3 SCC 132Reported decision1996#7551 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 131Section 142(2A)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 145(1)sanction under section 151section 90asection 114substantive assessmentsection 153a(1)(b)section 144aprotective assessmentwholly and exclusively for businesssection 151(2)section 158bg

Judgments citing Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan

GUJARAT KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1990/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora AR’sFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 250Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1990/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gujarat Knowledge Society, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 602, 6th Floor, Block No. 2, Ward-1(Exemption), Karmayogi Bhavan,Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad Gujarat - 382010 [PAN No.AABTG3632R] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora AR’s Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…ITA No.1488/Chny/2025 (AY 2015-16) & Others Periyasamy Anbunathan :: 2 :: आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals preferred by the Revenue arise from the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 (hereinafter referred to as Ld.CIT(A)'), Chennai, dated 29.03.2025 for Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as AY') 2014-15 to 2017-18 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee has preferred appeals and cross objections in relation to the order(s) passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since issues involved are common, all the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

PERIASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, v. The DCIT, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Central Circle-1(4), Thottakurichi Post, Chennai. Karur-639 113. [PAN: AHMPA 6511 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1457/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India 1993 Supp (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai 1993 Supp (1) SCC 37, and Ramlal, Motilal & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, and held that the principle of “each d…

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India 1993 Supp (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai 1993 Supp (1) SCC 37, and Ramlal, Motilal&Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, and held that the principle of “each day…

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India 1993 Supp (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai 1993 Supp (1) SCC 37, and Ramlal, Motilal&Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, and held that the principle of “each day…

KAILASH GAHLOT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…t by the higher authority. Whereas, Sanction is mandatory and jurisdictional without which, the proceedings are invalid. Sanction is more than mere approval. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the cases of Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., (1986) 1 SCC 264 and Kalpanath Rai vs State (1997) 8 SCC 732 have held that “approval” generally conveys a sense of confirmation of an act already done, while “sanction” conveys a prior permission or authorization before the act is done. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Regional Manager…

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…enses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." Thereafter, in the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others (1996) 3 SCC 132, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. It has been observed as under: - "11.... The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cau…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…T Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation . Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC) (vi). G. Ramegowda, Major and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142: (vii). State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others (1996) 3 SCC 132: (viii). State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others, (1996) 9 SCC . 309 (ix). National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Giga Ram and others, (2002) 10 SCC . . 176. 22 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (x). State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and others (2005) 3 SCC 752 The Ld. D.R. heavily relied upon the order of…

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. SMT SIDDAMMA

MSA/41/2016HC Karnataka05 Mar 2021

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

Section 4(2)Section 5

…ith reference to the issues, which has been referred by the learned Single Judge for consideration of this bench. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'GOKARAJU RANGARAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH', (1981) 3 SCC 132, 'MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES VS. SATCHIKITSAPRASARAK MANDAL', (2010) 3 SCC 786 and in 'N.NANJAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (2011) 4 KCCR 2502. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In Kariyappa’s case, learned single judge of this court held…

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

…v. Lipok (2005) 3 SCC 752; New India Insurane Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra (1975) 2 SCC 840; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and (1996) Page 13 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. 3 SCC 132; Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 3 SCC 132; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limtied v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (2010) 5 SCC 459; Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and others (2010) 5 SCC 459; Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685; Union of India v. Ram Charan AIR 1964 S…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/SADISHWAR INDIA

ITA/41/2016HC Karnataka20 Sept 2017

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH

Section 4(2)Section 5

…ith reference to the issues, which has been referred by the learned Single Judge for consideration of this bench. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'GOKARAJU RANGARAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH', (1981) 3 SCC 132, 'MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES VS. SATCHIKITSAPRASARAK MANDAL', (2010) 3 SCC 786 and in 'N.NANJAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (2011) 4 KCCR 2502. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In Kariyappa’s case, learned single judge of this court held…