How many judgments cite Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT?

137 judgments on BharatTax cite Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT (389 ITR 250), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 250, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 144B.

Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT

389 ITR 250High Court2017#750 most cited

What is Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT authority for?

In matters concerning condonation of delay, courts must adopt an overall view in the larger interest of justice, prioritizing substantial justice over mere technicalities. Adjudication on merits should not be denied unless the delay in filing an appeal is found to be deliberate, intentional, careless, negligent, or the litigant's conduct clearly lacks bona fides.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · Income-tax Act · 1961 · Section 250 · substantial justice · larger interest of justice · bona fide conduct · deliberate delay · negligent conduct · adjudication on merits · High Court decision

Also reported as

86 Taxmann.com 9898 ITD 259

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 250 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 144B Section 250(6)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 271h(3)section 272a(2)section 271h section 272 section 200a(1)section 272a section 200(3)section 200a section 234e section 200 delay in filing appeal condonation of delay

Judgments citing Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT

SHREYA SANTOSH CHAWAK ,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD - 1 , PANVEL

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

ITA 3136/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3136/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shreya Santosh Chawak, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-3, 12, Kinara Chs, Ward-1, Panvel 52 Bungalow, Bundar Road, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan: Avepc0471G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya MFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule

Section 147Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3136/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shreya Santosh Chawak, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-3, 12, Kinara CHS, Ward-1, Panvel 52 Bungalow, Bundar Road, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra PAN: AVEPC0471G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan Revenue by : Shri Ambarnath Khule (through virtual) Date of hearing : 16.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order…

SHIROL PANCHAYAT SAMITT KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT SHIROL,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI

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

ITA 2765/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2765/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shirol Panchayat Samitti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karmchari Sahakari Ward 1, Ichalkaranji Patsanstha Maryadit Shirol 1 Near Panchayat Samiti Shirol, Kolhapur-416103 Maharashtra Pan:Aahas3871M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

…h other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, neg…

LATE VISHWAS GAJMAL SONAWANE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…h other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. 10. In light of above discussion, I hereby condone the delay of 971 in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Since ld.CIT(A) had no occasion to decide the issues on merit, I am of the considered opinion that the issues on me…

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

ITA 593/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anil Turakhia, ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025 (AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15) 19 Rani Sati Colony, Y.N. Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement बनाम / Vs. ITO 5(1) Indore (Revenue/Respondent) PAN:ABTPT7760N Shri Ashish Goyal, AR Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR 16.02.2026 19.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench: The captioned four (4) appeals are filed by assessee, the details are as under: ITA No.…

DYANSAWANDHANI GRAMIN BIGARSHATI SAHAKARI PATASANSHATA MARAYDIT,SHIRWAL, KHANDALA, SATARA, MAHARASHTRA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4 SATARA, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MANJUNATH MANOR, PAWAI NAKA, SATARA

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

ITA 2914/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2914/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Rajkumar Doshi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

…ch other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, neg…

MAYUR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4178/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mayur Govindbhai Patel C-3002, HDIL Metropolis Tower, J. P. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai - 400053. Maharashtra [PAN: AAGPP3288B] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.608, 6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Dhaval Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Conclusion of hearing : 30.10.2025 Pronouncement of order : 23.12.2025 O R D E R [ P…

SHRI VITHOBA DEOSTHAN KHARIGAON TRUST,KHARIGAON vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 6101/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Omkareshwar Chidara & Shri Vithoba Deosthan Vs. Cit(E) Kharigaon Trust Thane Kharigaon, Post Kalwa, Tal. 6Th Floor, Room No. 18 & Dist Thane, Thane Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate, Thane – 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Aaets5678J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By Shri Vivek Prampurna, Cit(Dr)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri Vithoba Deosthan Vs. CIT(E) Kharigaon Trust Thane Kharigaon, Post Kalwa, Tal. 6th Floor, Room No. 18 & Dist Thane, Thane Ashar IT Park, Wagle Estate, Thane – 400 604 PAN/GIR No. AAETS5678J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue by Shri Vivek Prampurna, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging…

SHRI YOG NIROGDHAM DHARMATH TRUST,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2388/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

…eir Lordships have also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should be preferred. 4.1 Further, the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Royal Airways Ltd. v. ADIT, (2006) 98 ITD 259 (Del) condoned the delay of 9 to 11 years in filing appeals by holding as under: “20………. It is not a case where the assessee could expect to have derived any mileage on account of the matter getting delayed The delay in filing of appeals has caused prejudice to no one else except the assessee himself. When we keep these facts in mind, the bona fi…

SHRI YOG NIROGDHAM DHARMATH TRUST, GURUGRAM,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2387/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 615/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA Nos. 614& 615/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Anil .......... Appellant Poliyaparambil, Koothattukulam 686662 [PAN: BEBPA1163E] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das K. Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM Instant group of appeal of the assessee is preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for bre…

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 614/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

MSEB EMPLOYEE CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD JALNA,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA

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

ITA 1685/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1685/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

…ught out anything contrary to disbelieve the averments made by the assessee. In this regard, we would like to quote the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of 3 MSEB Employee Coop. Credit Society Ltd. Jalna Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein delay of 2984 days was condoned. Hon’ble Court held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally de…

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, \"SMC\" JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 206/JP/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13\nPramod Kumar Choudhary\nWard 12, Muhana Mod, New\nPower House Hajyawala,\nSanganer, Jaipur\nVs.\nITO,\nWard 7(2),\nJaipur\nस्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BACPC4828D\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Ass…

LAKSHMANRAM BHEEMAJI PUROHIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2018-19 Lakshmanram Bheemaji Purohit, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Chowlu Galli, Ward 5(2)(1), Siddanna Lane Cross, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. PAN: AHPPP 3267Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharat Kumar, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing : 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 O R D E R 1. This appeal is filed by Lakshmanram Bheemaji Purohit (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2018-19 again…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर 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 Appellant by : Shri Darshit J. Naik Respondent by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee p…

ROLTA INDIA LTD THROUGH MAMTA BINANI IRP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6976/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, AR

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 6976/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rolta India Ltd. through Mamta DCIT, CC-(1)(1), Room No. 903, 9th Floor, Binani, IRP. , Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Vs. Park, 22nd Street, MIDC, Marol, Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACR2711G Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Shekhar Gupta, AR : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2…

BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2325/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

…nsultant to represent before the authority. I am of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. Here, I would like to quote the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein it was held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he i…

BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

SUMAN AHMED,GAURIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- DHUBRI, DHUBRI

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

ITA 45/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kushal SoniFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekar Das

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…he judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6.1 The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) has held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of Suman Ahmed an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he…

PASHANKAR AUTO WORKS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1773/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 250(6)

…the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6.1 The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) has held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless,…

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7