How many judgments cite Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others (3 SCC 195), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 119, Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 148, Section 12A, Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii).

Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others

3 SCC 195Reported decision2002#2745 most cited

What is Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others authority for?

The expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or similar provisions must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. Courts should avoid a pedantic or hyper-technical approach, generally accepting explanations unless negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is evident.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · liberal construction · substantial justice · Section 5 Limitation Act · Income Tax Act Section 119 · procedural technicalities · bona fides · Order 22 Rule 9 CPC

Sections most often in play

Section 119 Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 148 Section 12A Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 119(1)section 66 section 80g(5)(ii)section 52 section 80g(5)(iv)ppt section 80g(5)(iii)trc section 10(23c)section 246 assistant director

Judgments citing Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 579/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 23. In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao vs. CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SCC 195, it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on…

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 578/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

…justice and is expected to do so." 23. In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao vs. 12 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji Sarvajanik Nyas v CIT (Exemption)Bhopal Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SCC 195, it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on…

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 258/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…lize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on t…

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 257/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

VIKAS TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3047/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3047/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2020-21) Vikas Tyagi, S/O Shri Satish Tyagi, Tehsil Modinagar, Ravli Kalam, Muradnagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Ghaziabad 201206, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Alwpt-0588-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cgi-Ii, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad 201002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2025, For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Shri V. Raj Kumar, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine On Account Of Limitation. There Was Delay Of 44 Days In Filing Of Appeal. The Assessee Had Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay Supported By Medical Records. The Cit(A) Without Appreciating The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal Dismissed Appeal Of The Assessee. He Submitted That The Delay

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 5

…justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 5.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 3 The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause sh…

SHASHWAT VERMA,LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3468/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3468/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Shashwat Verma, Flat-34, London House, London Nw8 7Px, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant United Kingdom Pan: Afspv-5520-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(1), R.No. 2109, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 20.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 88 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Reasons For Delay Stated In Application Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 88 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 148

…justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 7.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown…

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 370/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT

Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

…ons of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC]. 26. Wherefore the Petitioner / Appellant once again humbly pray before this Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly consider the submissions made and considering the submissions the Petitioner / Appell…

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT

Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vidc Madanlal v. Shyamlal Madanlal v. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535 and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan San, (2002) 3 SCC 195].) Page 17 of 24 ITA No.- 7392/Del/2017 M/s NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 'A resultflowin…

BHUPESH RAVINDER DATT SHARMA,AUSTRALIA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(85), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1306/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1306/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2016-17) Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, 16A, Fisher Street, Victoria, Australia 314500 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Augps-4400-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed Return Of Income U/S. 139 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,11,370/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny, Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2017 Was Issued To The Assessee. Despite Service Of Aforesaid Notice, The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Same. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 5Section 68

…justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 3.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown…

PANKAJ NARANG,NEW LAJPAT RAI MARKET DELHI vs. A.O WARD-48(1), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4580/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P D Mittal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

…A) shall considered the same and decide the same in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 3 Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 and shall thereafter decide the appeal, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 09th day of May, 2025. (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सद"य/JUDIC…

D N S LASE OPTIK PVT LTD,DWARKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- ITO, DWARKA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5145/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.5145/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2020-21) D N S Lase Optik P Ltd. A-1003, Sunny Velly, Plot No.27, Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi 110078 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AAACD-3221-B बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Dwarka, New Delhi 110078 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : None "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 15/04/2025 आदेश…

MANASBAL TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5469/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri Mahender Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

…justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 5.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown…

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 163/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 1 | Page

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

…ize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 23. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on t…

THIMMIAH NARAYANAPPA MURALIDHAR ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1578/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Vs. Ito, No.5, Karidevaraker I Cross, Gandhibazaar, Ward – 3, Shimoge – 577 202. Shivamogga. Pan : Bqkpm 0728 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Ravishankar & Monish Sowkar, Advocates. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2024

For Appellant: S/Shri. Ravishankar and Monish Sowkar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Vs. ITO, No.5, Karidevaraker I Cross, Gandhibazaar, Ward – 3, Shimoge – 577 202. Shivamogga. PAN : BQKPM 0728 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : S/Shri. Ravishankar and Monish Sowkar, Advocates. Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 23.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance…

M/S. TILES GALLERY ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIVMOGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1244/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 246ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 M/s. Tiles Gallery, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.01, S.R.R. Complex, Ward 1 & TPS, Jail Road Main Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201. PAN : AAJFT 8407B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee aga…

FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1682/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 69

…n'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195) has Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195) has Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195) has held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule an held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule an held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refu…

M/S. DESAI AND COMPANY ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1015/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Desai & Company, Vs. Acit, No.1, P.B.Road, Vidyanagar, Circle – 1(1), Hubballi – 560 031. Hubballi. Pan : Aaafd 9759 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parthivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parthivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 246ASection 250Section 40

…rd of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others reported in 118 ITR 507  Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank Et Others reported in [2009] 9 SCC 733  Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu EC Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao Et Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance  Corporation Limited reported in [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC]. 6. Since we have condoned the delay of 62 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A), the issue on merits has to be necessarily considered by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of addition…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3