Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

398 ITR 250High Court2017#269 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 367,154 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

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Pune

ITA 1297/PUN/2023[2014-15(Q4-27EQ)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Pune

ITA 1296/PUN/2023[2014-15 (Q2-27EQ)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Pune

ITA 1295/PUN/2023[2014-15 ( Q1-27EQ)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Pune

ITA 1294/PUN/2023[2013-14(Q4-27EQ)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Pune

ITA 1293/PUN/2023[2013-14 (Q3-27EQ)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Pune

ITA 1292/PUN/2023[2013-14 (Q2-27EQ)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Pune

ITA 1291/PUN/2023[2013-14 (24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1290/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q3 (FORM 24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1289/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q2 (FORM 24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1288/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q3 (FORM 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1287/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q3 (FORM 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1286/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q2(FORM 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

…6 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe Vs ITO(TDS) ITA No.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023 3. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay in instituting these appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), deem it fit to condone the delay holding that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 2. Without reproducing the grounds of appeal, it shall…

Rajiv Kumar Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Meerut

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

ITA 2895/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediavs. Ito Rajiv Kumar Singh Vill. Chamrodh, Tarapur, Ward – 2(2) Mawana, Meerut, Up-250 404 Meerut Pan No. Bxepr 0212 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

…ists for cononation of delay if any, in the light of judgment in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123 and Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom.). 5. Consequently, we consider it just and proper to summarily restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo consideration of appeal and fresh determination of issues involved in the light of the relevant facts and in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 4 6. The delay before the CIT(A) in in…

Gurjeet Singh, Ladwa vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kurushetra

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

ITA 2726/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 2(14)

…hyper technical approach. A reference to the useful judgments in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123 and Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) can be made. 6. Consequently, we consider it just and proper to summarily restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo consideration of appeal and fresh determination of issues involved in the light of the relevant facts and in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 7. The delay before the CIT(…

Hindupur Bio-Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 644/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 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. Having regard to the reasons given in the application, we do not find any reason to conclude that the assessee deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Hence, respectfully, following the above s…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hindupur Bio-Energy Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1243/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 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. Having regard to the reasons given in the application, we do not find any reason to conclude that the assessee deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Hence, respectfully, following the above s…

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 585/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Ram Dev Chandel Income Tax Officer, S/o Shri Neera Lal Chandel Vs. Ward, Bundi Village Karwar, Tehsil- Nainwan, Bundi. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGHPC 6443 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.…

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1335/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal &For Respondent: Ms. R.M Brindha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Bimal H. Kiri, Vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), 29-A, Saraswati Bldg, 203, 2nd Floor, Kennedy Bridge Road, Matru Mandir, Opera House, Mumbai- 400007. Mumbai-400004. PAN/GIR No. : AEBPK2298D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal & Shri Poojan Mehta.AR Respondent by : Ms. R.M Brindha.DR 24.08.2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 04.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi…

M/S. Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 297/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)
Section 143Section 250

…n the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 • HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22 December, 2020) • Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 • Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil &Anr. v. Godawaribai [MANU/MH/0022/2000: 1999 (2) Manu 273]: • In G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (1988) (2 SCC 142), Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was) • In Sreenivas Charitable Trust it was held by The Madras High Court • Apex Court (Honorable Supreme Court of…

ACIT, Alwar vs. Raghuveer Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 1039/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)
Section 143Section 250

…n the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 • HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22 December, 2020) • Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 • Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil &Anr. v. Godawaribai [MANU/MH/0022/2000: 1999 (2) Manu 273]: • In G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (1988) (2 SCC 142), Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was) • In Sreenivas Charitable Trust it was held by The Madras High Court • Apex Court (Honorable Supreme Court of…