Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

398 ITR 250High Court2017#263 most cited

What is Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr authority for?

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

291

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

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT · 398 ITR 250 · condonation of delay · appeal filing delay · Section 253(1) · Section 249(2) · delay in income tax appeal · sufficient cause for delay · income tax appeals · limitation period for appeals · Bombay High Court 2017

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 148Section 1963

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)section 200a(1)(c)section 200a(1)section 200(3)delay in filing appealsection 249(2)section 12ab(1)section 200section 200asection 234esection 246asection 249

Judgments citing Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

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

…ay in furnishing the return of income. 4. The moot point is as to whether such a huge delay deserves to be condoned. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court…

BAJIRAO SHANKAR JAGDALE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1389/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 250

…at that point of time. However, subsequently they made revised claim before CIT(A). 4 Bajirao Shankar Jagdale 8.1 Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay VishinMeghani vs DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) has condoned the delay of 2984days, which was on account of professional advice of a CA. 9. The identical issue of BSNL employees is decided by ITAT Pune in favour of assessee in ITA Nos.290 and 293/PUN/2026, ITA Nos.294 and 295/PUN/2026. ITAT Pune has relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Jayeskumar Sutaria vs ITO,ITA…

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)

…of appeal upto 15.10.2024. Considering the above facts, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the appeal and relied on various decisions condoning the delay including that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250. On merits of the case, it is further contended that the assessee has a strong prima- facie case as the said land which was sold by the assessee is not a capital asset as per Municipality and Cantonment Board Gazette No.SO 91 dated 08.02.1991. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A). 4 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane 8. I have…

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 281/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…t be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 31 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 34. In view of aforestated observations and the parameter set in judicial precedents cited (supra) and ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we are mindful to hold that, twin reasons stated & averments made in support of delay per-se failed to prove existence of sufficient cause, therefore all pleas made therein & grounds contended in seeking condonation stands rejected. Thu…

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 280/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…t be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 31 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 34. In view of aforestated observations and the parameter set in judicial precedents cited (supra) and ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we are mindful to hold that, twin reasons stated & averments made in support of delay per-se failed to prove existence of sufficient cause, therefore all pleas made therein & grounds contended in seeking condonation stands rejected. Thu…

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 279/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…t be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 31 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 34. In view of aforestated observations and the parameter set in judicial precedents cited (supra) and ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we are mindful to hold that, twin reasons stated & averments made in support of delay per-se failed to prove existence of sufficient cause, therefore all pleas made therein & grounds contended in seeking condonation stands rejected. Thu…

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 278/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…t be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 31 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 34. In view of aforestated observations and the parameter set in judicial precedents cited (supra) and ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we are mindful to hold that, twin reasons stated & averments made in support of delay per-se failed to prove existence of sufficient cause, therefore all pleas made therein & grounds contended in seeking condonation stands rejected. Thu…

SHRI LEO DINIZ,BORDA, FATORDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, PANAJI

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 150/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(1)

…150/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 behaviour, laxity attitude of the appellant and sheer negligence towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. In view of the parameter set in judicial precedent cited (supra) and ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averments made in support of delay per-se failed to prove existence of sufficient cause, therefore all pleas made therein & grounds contended to buy home delay condonation stands rejecte…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 268/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 267/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 266/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 265/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 264/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 263/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 262/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 261/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 260/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 259/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ce towards prosecution which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 28. In view of the parameter set in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)], ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746], we are mindful to hold that, the reasons stated & averme…

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2544/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

…tely it filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) but CIT(A) failed to consider the reasons for delay and dismissed appeal on account of delay. Ld.AR submitted that there was sufficient cause for delay. Ld.AR relied on following decisions :  Vijay VishinMeghani Vs. DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom)  Balaji Landmarks LLP Vs.CBDT[2025] 307 Taxman 498 (Bombay)[14-10-2025]  EBR Enterprises Vs.Union of India  Prasanna Patankar Vs.ITO ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 4. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee invited our attention to the Return of Income filed by the assessee , the order u/s 143(1) of the Act and the rectification appl…

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1890/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

…tely it filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) but CIT(A) failed to consider the reasons for delay and dismissed appeal on account of delay. Ld.AR submitted that there was sufficient cause for delay. Ld.AR relied on following decisions :  Vijay VishinMeghani Vs. DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom)  Balaji Landmarks LLP Vs.CBDT[2025] 307 Taxman 498 (Bombay)[14-10-2025]  EBR Enterprises Vs.Union of India  Prasanna Patankar Vs.ITO ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 4. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee invited our attention to the Return of Income filed by the assessee , the order u/s 143(1) of the Act and the rectification appl…

Showing 1–20 of 291 · Page 1 of 15

...