How many judgments cite Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DGIT?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DGIT (323 ITR 223), spanning 2019 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DGIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(2), Section 147, Section 10(23C), Section 11(1), Section 11(5).

Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DGIT

323 ITR 223High Court2010#8402 most cited

What is Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DGIT authority for?

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should prevail, particularly when the delay in compliance was not deliberate and did not benefit the assessee.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sitaldas K. Motwani · DGIT · 2010 · 323 ITR 223 · Bombay High Court · condonation of delay · substantial justice · technical considerations · non-deliberate delay · preference of justice

Sections most often in play

Section 11 Section 11(2)Section 147 Section 10(23C)Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 144 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)section 10(23c)reasonable cause condonation of delay section 11 section 12a section 12 section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 13 section 139 section 27

Judgments citing Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DGIT

Jm Financial Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-Ward-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

…f income u/s 2(24)(2a) of the Act:- • Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Pala Marketing Co- operative Society Ltd. vs. UOI reported in [2009] 311 ITR 177 (Kerala) • Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani vs. DGIT reported in [2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bom)(HC) • Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2012] 349 ITR 404 (Bom)(HC) 4. For assessment year 2018-19, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, Form 10 was not filed before any of the authorities below and is filed for the first time before this Tribunal, and assessee has sought admissi…

Jm Financial Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6557/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

Mohanji Bharat Welfare Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2617/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 11(1)(c)Section 80G

…irected to accept Form 10AB in physical mode treating same as filed prior to last date of submission anddelay period was condoned. Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani vs DGIT [2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bom) (HC) wherein it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for another side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 8. Ld. AR further submitted that there was no violation of Se…

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

…furnishing audit report. We found that the observation of the Id. CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity and we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Id. CIT(A)" 22. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani vs DGIT [2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bombay) held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 23 We further rely on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mayur Foundation [2005] 274 ITR 562 (Guj.), in which, it was held that provisions have to be interpreted in a…

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

Varvade Panchkroshi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ratanagiri vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2349/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2349/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Varvade Panchkroshi Shikshan Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur At Post Varawade, Waravade, Ratnagiri – 415620 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatv7973M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J. NaikFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

…of 332 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the reasons. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani vs. DGIT (2010) 323 ITR 223 (Bom) it was submitted that the delay was not intentional and assessee would not have gained anything by filing the appeal with delay. It is therefore prayed that the delay be condoned. Reliance further placed on following judgments : 2 Varvade Panchkroshi Prasarak Mandal Srl.No. Particulars 1. Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr v. MST…

Kolhapur Zilla Krishi Karmachari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1763/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 249Section 270ASection 80P

…ed in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Relying on the decisions in the case of: :-(i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Sitaldas K. Motwani Vs. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors., 323 ITR 223 (Bom); (iii) IIFL Samasta Finance Limited Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1054/Bang/2024 and (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P) Ltd., 409 ITR 545 (Bom), he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 6.1 He further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on…

Swapnil Rajaram Kolambe, Jalgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik

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

ITA 556/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: None

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

…of the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. It cannot be said that the appellant had obtained any undue advantage out of the delay in filing the present appeal. As 4 observed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DGIT 323 ITR 223 (Bom), when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of…

DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar vs. M/S Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…d filing of the return where deduction is claimed u/s 80IC of the Act; that the said circular does not expressly say so; that as explained by the Bombay High Court in “Sitaldas K. Motwani Vs Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) New Delhi” 323 ITR 223 (Bom.), the phrase “genuine hardships” in Section 119(2)(b) of the ITA 326/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 26 Act ought to be construed liberally; that as observed by the said High Court, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cann…

M/S. Crystal Granite and Marble Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 405/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K, JCIT (DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…nted approach and if a claim is legitimately due to an applicant even if a delay has occasional due to genuine hardship that should not be denied on technicalities. d. Reliance is placed on the following, (i) DGIT (International Taxation) [2010] 187 Taxman 44/323 ITR 223/228 SCC CTR 373 (Bom.)/[2009] SCC Online 2195, “it was observed that refusing to condone the delay could result into a meritorious matter being thrown out the very threshold defeating the cause of justice.” (ii) Shailesh Vitthalbhai Patel [2022] 145 taxmann.com 10 (Gujarat) “The object is to help the assessee who for good and valid reasons are pr…

Amit Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8750/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryamit Gupta Vs. Ito D-63, Gf, Kaushambi, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad, Up-201 012 Ghaziabad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ng substantial justice should be the paramount consideration rather than rejecting it on hyper technicalities. It would be relevant here to refer to the observation made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shitaldas Motiwani vs. DGIT reported in 2010, 323 ITR 223 (Bom.) “15…. The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merits.The expression "genuine" has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove and while considering this aspect, the author…

Avtec Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…substantial justice should be the paramount consideration rather than rejecting it on hyper technicalities. It would be relevant here to refer to the observation 5 made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shitaldas Motiwani vs. DGIT reported in 2010, 323 ITR 223 (Bom.) “15…. The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merits.The expression "genuine" has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove and while considering this aspect, the authori…

Minilec India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1147/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…l justice should be the paramount consideration rather than rejecting on hyper-technicalities. At this moment, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani & DGIT reported in (2010) 323 ITR 223 (Bom). “15……….The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merit. The expression "genuine" has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove and while considering this aspect, the auth…