Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) v. CIT

213 ITR 715Reported decision1995#17679 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 45Section 80P

Issues it is cited on

section 249(3)first appealspeaking ordercondonation of delaysection 25section 250indiapersoninterestsection 14document

Judgments citing Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) v. CIT

ANJANNA CHATTOPADHYAY,WADALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15 1 4 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5009/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45

…/2022. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the technical ground of absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Respectful reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) vs CIT 213 ITR 715, which supports the proposition that procedural delays, when reasonably explained, should not defeat substantive justice. We restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to submit the Affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) by explaining the delay in filing appeal before 1st appellate autho…

AJINKYATARA SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KOPER KHAIRANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1)(1), VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3292/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sushant AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)
Section 12Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

…2022. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the technical ground of absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Respectful reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) vs CIT 213 ITR 715, which supports the proposition that procedural delays, when reasonably explained, should not defeat substantive justice. We restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to submit the Affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) by explaining the delay in filing appeal before 1st appellate autho…

DEEPTI MAHAJAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 1163/Mum/2025

ITA 1163/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil A. BhattFor Respondent: ShriAnnavaram Kosuri SR.AR
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

…f the assessee's paper book, while the affidavit is enclosed at pages 7 to 9 of the paper book. 3 ITA 1163/Mum/2025 Deepti Mahajan 4. The Ld.AR also relied on the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) vs CIT 213 ITR 715, wherein the Hon’ble Court upholding the order of the Tribunal that by condoning the delay, the department was not likely to suffer any loss or prejudice. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is extracted below:- "In our view, considering the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it is apparent that the appellate authority has…

PRABODH MOHANLAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 331/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 288Section 292BSection 54

…t. Thus Form No. 35A signed by the Authorized Representative is only an irregularity which is curable u/s. 292B of the Act and not an illegality. 4.1. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Maneklal Sheth (HUF) Vs. CIT reported in (1995) 213 ITR 715 wherein it was held that the appellate authorities has power to cure I.T.A No. 331/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 4 Prabodh Mohanlal Shah vs. ACIT the so called irregularity with regard to the signature in Form No. 35 as follows: “It is apparent that the AAC has felt that the delay was required to be condoned considering the various judgments wh…

REJENDRA RAMJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 138/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 292B

…Authority in favour of the Chartered Accountant. Thus this is an irregularity and not an illegality which is curable defect u/s. 292B of the Act. 6.1. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Maneklal Sheth (HUF) Vs. CIT reported in (1995) 213 ITR 715 wherein it was held that the appellate authorities has power to cure I.T.A No. 138/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 5 Rajendra Ramjibhai Patel vs. ACIT the so called irregularity with regard to the signature in Form No. 35 as follows: “It is apparent that the AAC has felt that the delay was required to be condoned considering the various judgments…