PC-156 (ii) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266 (iii) Baldeo Lal Roy v. State of Bihar

302 ITR 139Reported decision#20415 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing PC-156 (ii) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266 (iii) Baldeo Lal Roy v. State of Bihar

Celestial Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Ambalamugal vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Ernaluam

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

…delay in filing the appeal, it is evident that appellant had no cause for not filing the appeal in time. 7.7 In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd (Gujarat 87 STC 266), Baldeo Lai Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M Loganathan Vs CIT (Madras 302 ITR 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. 7.8 In the case of Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya Vs ITO, (ITA No. 64/Srt/2023) the Income Ta…

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

…re the Hon'ble Tribunal well within time allowed. 4. [Whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence?] In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Gujarat 87 STC 266), BaldeoLal Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M Loganathan VS CIT (Madras 302 ITR 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. 5. [Whether the appellant has shown reason for delay…

Jagdish Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee's are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Poona

Section 147

…finding reliance is placed on the following case laws: (i) Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917-PC-156 (ii) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (Guj.) 87 STC 266 (iii) Baldeo Lal Roy Vs. State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat.) (iv) M. Loganathan Vs. CIT (Mad.) 302 ITR 139 11 Shri Jagdish Sharma vs ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur The reasons for late filing of the appeal as cited above cannot said to be bona-fide and therefore, this case is not found fit for condonation of delay. As the appeal has not been presented as per provision of sec. 249(2) of IT Act and the delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, therefore, th…

Devi Marine Food Exports P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 9

ITA 2167/CHNY/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2167/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 1993-94 M/s. Devi Marine Food Exports Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P. Ltd, Company Circle I(4) 30, 28th Cross Street, Chennai Indira Nagar, Chennai 600 020. [PAN AAACD 1950D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by…