Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited

Q: How many judgments cite Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (3 SCC 563), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 200A, Section 5, Section 10(1), Section 143(1), Section 143(1) of the Act.

3 SCC 563Reported decision2012#4493 most cited

What is Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited authority for?

Condonation of delay in filing appeals is not an exception and should not be an anticipated benefit for government departments. Departments must demonstrate reasonable and acceptable reasons for delay, with bona fide effort, and mere procedural red tape is insufficient grounds.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited · condonation of delay · reasonable cause · bona fide effort · government departments · procedural red tape · delay in filing appeal · section 5 Limitation Act · delay in SLP

Sections most often in play

Section 5 of the Limitation Act Section 200A Section 5 Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1) of the Act Section 143(3)Section 151 CPC

Issues it is cited on

delay in filing appeal condonation of delay reasonable cause section 143(1)prescribed person india nfac interest document company business

Judgments citing Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited

Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Historic Infracon

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/409/2017HC Delhi19 May 2017

Bench: The

Section 260A

…that time the caveat report expires and the whole process is to be repeated again." 4. The Supreme Court has in State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 where it was observed as under: ITA 409/2017 Page 3 of 3 "In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no…

Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Historic Infracon Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/394/2017HC Delhi12 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

…condly, no attempt has been made to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal. 6. The Supreme Court has in State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 where it was observed as under: “In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-09, New Delhi vs. Usha International Ltd. (Formerly Known As the Jay Engineering Works Ltd.)

ITA/326/2017HC Delhi01 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260A

…er and posting at the level of AO which caused undue delay in filing this appeal.” 2. The Supreme Court has in State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 where it was observed as under: “In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The…

ITO (Exemptions), Chennai vs. Research Foundation for Jainology, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1514/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate

Section 143(3)

…s submitted that the delay is inordinate and there are no sufficient cause for such long delay in filing the appeals. In this connection, the assessee rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General vs Living Media India Ltd (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that red tapism within the department, slow movement of files, impersonal machinery, bureaucratic methodology in making decisions are no longer acceptable as ‘’sufficient cause’’ for condonation of delay’’. ITA No.1514/Mds/2015. :- 3 -: 4. We have heard both the parties. At the time of hearing the ld. Dep…

CIT vs. Elegant Travels Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

ITA/464/2012HC Delhi24 Aug 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 113Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A

…2012 Page 10 of 12 appeal was filed only on 18th December 2010 i.e. more than an year and two months thereafter. Therefore even that delay is not satisfactorily explained. 22. In Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Supreme Court has deprecated the casual attitude of government departments in taking steps to file appeals within reasonable time in the following words: "26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not…

CIT vs. Arvinder Singh

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

ITA/453/2012HC Delhi24 Aug 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 113Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A