Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT

389 ITR 250High Court2017#746 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 367,368 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 1961Section 250Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 271h(3)section 272a(2)section 271hsection 272section 200a(1)section 272asection 200(3)section 200asection 234esection 200delay in filing appealcondonation of delay

Judgments citing Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT

Greaves Saommha Kamgar Sahakari Path Pedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. CIT-3, 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

…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.” (ii) 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

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

…y 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.” 10. Similarly, 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…

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 6140/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

…el has relied on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble High Court of Bombay:- 1. N. Balakrishnan v M Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 2. H.L Malhotra & Com. vs. DCIT 431 ITR 148 (Del) 3. Vijay Meghani vs. ITO 389 ITR 250 (Bom) 4. Peter Vaz vs. CIT 436 ITR 76 (Bom) 3. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted the assessee could have engage another counsel or consultant for filing appeal within prescribed time limit before the ld. CIT(A) therefore inordinate delay in filing appeal was rightly denied as ther…

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 6139/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

…el has relied on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble High Court of Bombay:- 1. N. Balakrishnan v M Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123 2. H.L Malhotra & Com. vs. DCIT 431 ITR 148 (Del) 3. Vijay Meghani vs. ITO 389 ITR 250 (Bom) 4. Peter Vaz vs. CIT 436 ITR 76 (Bom) 3. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted the assessee could have engage another counsel or consultant for filing appeal within prescribed time limit before the ld. CIT(A) therefore inordinate delay in filing appeal was rightly denied as ther…

Rotary Seva Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1060/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1059 & 1060/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2022-23) Rotary Seva Trust Kalyan Vs. Cit Exemption 604/B Vrindavan Room No. 322, 3 Rd Floor, Paradise, Near Mumbai Income Tax Office, Pmt University Kalyan Sub Building, Shankar Seth Centre, Kalyan – West Road, Pune Maharashtra – 421301 Maharashtra – 411037 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetr4794G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mahesh K. MadkholkarFor Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…Land Acquisition Vs MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) 2. Shri Y P Trivedi Vs The JCIT ITA No. 5994/Mum/2010-Hon Members, G Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 3. The Honorable Jurisdictional high court, in the recent decision in case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT 308 ITR 250 (Bom).” 3. Heard both the sides and after looking to the nature of activity of the trust and unprofessional organisational set up of the trust we consider that there appear to be a bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal as this trust was recently created vide registration no. E- 12439/Thane dated 20.10.2021. Therefore, we condone the dela…

Rotary Seva Trust, Kalyan vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1059/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1059 & 1060/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2022-23) Rotary Seva Trust Kalyan Vs. Cit Exemption 604/B Vrindavan Room No. 322, 3 Rd Floor, Paradise, Near Mumbai Income Tax Office, Pmt University Kalyan Sub Building, Shankar Seth Centre, Kalyan – West Road, Pune Maharashtra – 421301 Maharashtra – 411037 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetr4794G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mahesh K. MadkholkarFor Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…Land Acquisition Vs MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) 2. Shri Y P Trivedi Vs The JCIT ITA No. 5994/Mum/2010-Hon Members, G Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 3. The Honorable Jurisdictional high court, in the recent decision in case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT 308 ITR 250 (Bom).” 3. Heard both the sides and after looking to the nature of activity of the trust and unprofessional organisational set up of the trust we consider that there appear to be a bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal as this trust was recently created vide registration no. E- 12439/Thane dated 20.10.2021. Therefore, we condone the dela…

Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Bhoomija Verma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…tion of delay. He relied the judgments of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [167 I.T.R. 471 (SC)], G. Ramegowda and Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (10.03.1988 - SC) [AIR 1988 SC 897] and Royal Airways Ltd. vs ADIT [2006] 98 ITD 259 (Delhi). 3. After hearing both the parties and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., we are of the opinion that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and condone the delay of 286 days. 4. The assessee has raised the fo…

Shree Swamy Samarth Prassana Oshiwara (E) Units Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 237/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, ITO-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4th 3 CHS Ltd. Vs. floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 CHS Bhavan, BKC, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. PAN No. AACAS 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue by : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date of pronouncement 22/05/20…

Creative Leaders Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 119/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 & Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. Creative Leaders Cit (Exemption), Foundation, Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, C/O Shri Milind Kulkarni, Flat No.2, Savali Income Tax Office, Apartment, Pmt Building, Vs. Lane No.3, Shankar Seth Road, Rabaug, Pune – 411 037 Kalyan West, Thane – 421 301 Maharashtra Pan: Aactc4406G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Marathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, D.R
Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…ls within time and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT 308 ITR 250 (Bom). 2. Keeping in view the fact that the applicant trust has been newly formed and due to paucity of trained staff/technical assistance the appeals within the period of limitation could not be filed which is a “sufficient cause” to our mind to condone the delay of 49 days and 45 days in both the appeals respectively, in view of the law laid d…

Creative Leaders Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 118/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 & Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. Creative Leaders Cit (Exemption), Foundation, Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, C/O Shri Milind Kulkarni, Flat No.2, Savali Income Tax Office, Apartment, Pmt Building, Vs. Lane No.3, Shankar Seth Road, Rabaug, Pune – 411 037 Kalyan West, Thane – 421 301 Maharashtra Pan: Aactc4406G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Marathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, D.R
Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…ls within time and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT 308 ITR 250 (Bom). 2. Keeping in view the fact that the applicant trust has been newly formed and due to paucity of trained staff/technical assistance the appeals within the period of limitation could not be filed which is a “sufficient cause” to our mind to condone the delay of 49 days and 45 days in both the appeals respectively, in view of the law laid d…

Viswabharati Mutually Aided Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

…CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. In support of his case, Ld. AR filed the following decisions : • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT – 398 ITR 250 of Bombay High Court. • Royal Airways Lts Vs. Addl.CIT – 98 ITD 259 – Delhi High Court. • All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. DIT (Exemptions), 93 TTJ 155 – Delhi High Court. • Angela J. Kazi Vs. ITO – 10 SOT 139 of Mumbai Tribunal. • Smt. Rameshwari Devi and another Vs. Sansar Chand and others – AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh. • Nosegay Public School Management Committee Vs. CIT – 58 SOT 185 of Jodhpur Bench. •…