Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. DCIT

427 ITR 204High Court2020#1511 most cited

What is Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. DCIT authority for?

Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if there is a sufficient cause, such as a bonafide mistaken impression regarding the appealable order, aligning with the principle of advancing substantial justice.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. DCIT · 427 ITR 204 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · mistaken impression · section 263 · section 271H · section 272A · section 200A · limitation · appeal

Issues it is cited on

section 271h(3)section 272a(2)section 271hsection 272section 200a(1)section 272asection 200(3)section 200asection 234esection 200section 20section 234

Judgments citing Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. DCIT

SUNITA MOHAN PATIL,NASHIK vs. ACIT 1, NASHIK

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

ITA 939/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Section 5

…ority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. (iii) The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows : “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

ANANT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

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

ITA 636/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.636/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Maryadit, Pune Ist Floor, Panbajar Building, Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Yard, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaaa4259L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 263Section 5

…ority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. (iii) The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows : “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

GREAVES SAOMMHA KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATH PEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 345/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 5

…ority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. (iii) The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows : “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 60/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 59/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 58/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q, Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 57/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 56/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 55/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 54/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 53/PAN/2022[2013-14 26Q, Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 52/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q, Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 31/PAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 425/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessee against the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. 8. It is significant to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Telegana in the case of Shri Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 427 ITR 204 in the identical facts and circumstances has condoned the delay by observing as under: 21. The reasoning assigned by the assessee for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation to the Tribunal was that he was under the mistaken impression that only the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015 was required…

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 424/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessee against the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. 8. It is significant to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Telegana in the case of Shri Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 427 ITR 204 in the identical facts and circumstances has condoned the delay by observing as under: 21. The reasoning assigned by the assessee for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation to the Tribunal was that he was under the mistaken impression that only the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015 was required…

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 171/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rajinder Kaur V. Income Tax Officer, W/o Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ward Dasuya, Dasuya Vill. Dhamian Khurd, PO Sirhala Mundian, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BAJPK 5740B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by : Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the as…

ALLACODE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (TDS - 1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 582/PUN/2022[2015-16 ( 26Q - Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

ALLACODE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- (TDS - 1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 581/PUN/2022[2015-16 (26Q - Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

ALLACODE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- (TDS-1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 580/PUN/2022[2015-16 (26Q - Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

ALLACODE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- (TDS- 1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 579/PUN/2022[2015-16 (24Q Q -4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysr.No. Ita No. Asstt. Year Quarter/Form 1. 565/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q2/24Q 2. 566/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q3/24Q 3. 567/Pun/2022 2013-14 Q4/24Q 4. 568/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/24Q 5. 569/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/24Q 6. 570/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q/3/24Q 7. 571/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/24Q 8. 572/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q1/26Q 9. 573/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q2/26Q 10. 574/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q3/26Q 11. 575/Pun/2022 2014-15 Q4/26Q 12. 576/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/24Q 13. 577/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 14. 578/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q3/24Q 15. 579/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/24Q 16. 580/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q1/26Q 17. 581/Punb/2022 2015-16 Q2/26Q 18. 582/Pun/2022 2015-16 Q4/26Q

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 200ASection 234E

…e Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 (Telangana) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) held as follows :- “26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to a…

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. DCIT (427 ITR 204) — Cited in 75 Judgments | BharatTax