What is Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others authority for?

Procedural law serves as an aid to justice, not an obstruction, and should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; it is subservient to substantive justice.

How many judgments cite Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others?

87 judgments on BharatTax cite Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others (17 SCC 117), spanning 2020 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 90, Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 154, Section 91, Section 295(1).

Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others (17 SCC 117)

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…ortance to the non- observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 91

…ench considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the re…

Inlogic Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3323/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3323/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153

…regularities, especially in audit reports, should not lead to substantial justice being denied to the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of :-15-: ITA. No:3323/CHNY/2024 Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, held that: “that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is always subservi…

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 250Section 253(5)

…ortance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

…ill be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A V. BalajiFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 91

…ench considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the re…

Timirbaran Mazumder, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle 2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

The appeal are allowed

ITA 1905/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

…ssment Year: 2018-19 Timirbaran Mazumder. provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of i…

Vanshika Motors (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6214/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…uction but a servant and aid to justice. The procedural presumption is handmaid and not the mistress, the lubricant and not a resistant in the administration of justice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sambhaji vs. Gangabai, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117 as further contended by him. 4. Such submissions made by the ld. A.R has not been able to be controverted by the Ld DR and having regard to the explanation rendered by the assessee in support of the delay in filing the application before us as narrated hereinabove seems to be genuine inasmuch as there is no change in the fact of the matter nor an…

Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/HYD/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1204/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Vobbilisetty, (International Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acgpv5441G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca K Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA K HemalathaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 91

…ench considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the re…

Madan Kumar Sivinigari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2606/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…ortance to the non- observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6215/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…uction but a servant and aid to justice. The procedural presumption is handmaid and not the mistress, the lubricant and not a resistant in the administration of justice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sambhaji vs. Gangabai, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117 as further contended by him. 4. Such submissions made by the ld. A.R has not been able to be controverted by the Ld DR and having regard to the explanation rendered by the assessee in support of the delay in filing the application before us as narrated hereinabove seems to be genuine inasmuch as there is no change in the fact of the matter nor an…

Mr Kedar Jagdish Mankar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 1624/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…. Addl./JCIT(A) is not justified in denying the FTC claimed by the assessee. In support thereof, the Ld. AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements : “i. Honourable Supreme Court vide their order in the case of Sambhaji& Ors. V. Gangabai& Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 117: 2009 TaxPub(Ex) 1999 (SC), (Case PB-39) wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construe…

Bachira Uthaiah Poovaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 90

…ortance to the non- observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Vaibhav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2024[AY2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

…qual importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” Apart from the above decision, I further rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji &Ors. vs. Gangabai&Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 117 (SC) wherein it was held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court, the procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. Thus, a procedural law should not ordinarily be constru…

Rahul Anand, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Pal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 295(1)Section 90

…considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of in…

Surrendra Kumar Goenka, Howrah vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru / I.T.O., Ward 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 5Section 90

…f 10 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of in…

Debanjan Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1959/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1959/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Debanjan Chatterjee,……..…………….…………Appellant C-3/14, East Enclave Cooperative Society, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Aezpc7707H] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,………………Respondent Cpc, Bengluru, Bangalore-560500 Appearances By: Shri Nilesh Kariya, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 02, 2024 O R D E R

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…f 10 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi BachaoAndolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of inc…

Kalidoss Natarajan, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1976/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

…ortance to the non- observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Jaspal Singh Bindra, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal are allowed and the Ld

ITA 1826/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of in…

Neetu Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of i…

Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others

What is Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

Inlogic Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 1(1), Chennai

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 12(1), Hyderabad

Timirbaran Mazumder, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle 2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

Vanshika Motors (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

Madan Kumar Sivinigari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi

Mr Kedar Jagdish Mankar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

Bachira Uthaiah Poovaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

Vaibhav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2), Jaipur

Rahul Anand, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

Surrendra Kumar Goenka, Howrah vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru / I.T.O., Ward 61(3), Kolkata

Debanjan Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru, Bengalore

Kalidoss Natarajan, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

Jaspal Singh Bindra, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Neetu Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata