How many judgments cite Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr?

291 judgments on BharatTax cite Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr (398 ITR 250), spanning 2018 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 253(1), Section 144, Section 153C.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)section 200a(1)(c)section 200a(1)section 200(3)delay in filing appeal section 249(2)section 12ab(1)section 200 section 200a section 234e section 246a section 249

Judgments citing Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

Sujata Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

ITA 67/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 067/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita At.: Balale, Post.:Madangeri, Tal.:Ankola, Dist.: Uttara Kannada. Pan : Aafas2907J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karwar . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Varun Bhat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 Order

For Appellant: Mr Varun Bhat [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

…satisfied that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from filing present appeal against the impugned order in time allowed and the case of the assessee falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts 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)], thus requiring us to condone the delay in the larger interest of justice. In view thereof the undeliberate delay of 146 days occurred in instituting present appeal by the appellant assessee, after placing reliance on former judicial precede…

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…mbly requested to consider the fact sympathetically and to take mercy upon the assessee and admit the appeal of the assessee by condoning the delay. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 Appeal-Condonation of Delay-Claim for deduction under Section 80-0 made by Assessee was disallowed by A0 for Assessment Year 1993-94 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Against order of Commissioner, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal -Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO for Assessment Year 1993-94-A0 passed o…

Sunil Hanamant Naikwad, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

The appeal is ALLOWED as above

ITA 220/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Sunil Hanmantsa Naikwad 1156, Saraf Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum Pan:Abeph0397N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr JD Kalpavruksha [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sunil Hanmantsa Naikwad 1156, Saraf Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum PAN:ABEPH0397N . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr JD Kalpavruksha [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 19/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal is instituted against DIN & Order No. ITBA/…

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ase of substantial justice has to be preferred and justice oriented approach has to be taken while deciding the matter on condonation of delay - the reasons explained by the assessee are not malafide.  Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal.  Nimesh Kanubhai Topiwala Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat) ITA No. 242/Srt/2023 Held that the delay in filing appeal before ldCIT(A)/ NFAC is not deliberate or intention…

Dev Group, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward Behror, Behror

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

ITA 73/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 80

…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. 73/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Dev Group cuke The ITO, Harsora Road, Bansur, Vs. Ward, Behror. Alwar-301402. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFD0129N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@…

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO Ward, Behror

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

ITA 69/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 80

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No. 69/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri Krishan Kumar Yadav Bhoopsera, Alwar-301402. बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward, Behror. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABMPY7414K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओ…

Cheryl Savia Indira Lobo, Calangute vs. ACIT, C-1(1), Panaji

ITA 275/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 275/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Cheryl Savia Indira Lobo H.No. E-100, Pobha Vado, Calangute, Bardez, North Goa, Goa Pan : Acbpl9307J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinod Totekar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064290058(1) Dt. 23/04/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Vinod Totekar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 54E

…plained, we are satisfied that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from filing present appeal against the impugned order and the case of the assessee falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts 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)]. In view thereof the undeliberate delay of 135 days occurred in instituting present appeal after placing reliance on former judicial precedents, in the larger interest of justice we condone the delay and advanced for adjudication. 3. Tersel…

Kabbur Poorva Bhag Vividoddhesha Prathamik Grameen Krushi S Sangh Ni, Kabbur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 304/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Kabbur Purvbhag Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit At Post: Kabbur, Tal.:Chikodi, Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aadat9192J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Nippani. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069069880(1) Dt. 25/09/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 80P(2)

…ted by the appellant. The undeliberate reason as explained in the sworn affidavit is supported by medical certificate. The reason explained in our considered view is sufficient to pass the test of sufficiency as laid in ‘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)]. Therefore, the insignificant postal delay occurred in filing this appeal is condoned and advanced for adjudication on merits. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 6 The Kabbur Purvbhag Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Vs ITO ITA No 304/PA…

The Gokak Taluka Agricultural Produced Co-Op Marketing Society Ltd, Gokak vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Belgaum

ITA 274/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 274/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Gokak Taluka Agricultural Produced Co-Op. Marketing Society Ltd. Apmc Yard, Gokak, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Aaajt1462H . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S Gadadi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065710654(1) Dt. 18/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 22/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr S Gadadi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…eting Society Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA Nos.274/PAN/2024 AY: 2020-21 2. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay of 72 days in instituting present appeal, 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), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the dispute. Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 3. Without touching the merits and grounds of the appeal, Ld. AR submitted that, the impug…

Arjun Bhairu Bhangire, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

ITA 1444/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1442 and 1443/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Near Peer Temple, Pune Mohamad Wadi, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 Maharashtra PaN : AIGPB4021L Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1444/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arjun Bhairu Bhangire, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), 117,Mohamad Wadi, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 Maharashtra PaN : BXBPB9884J Appellant Respondent Assessee(s) by : Shri Pramod S Shingte…

Abhimayu Arjun Bhangire, Pune vs. ITO 14(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

ITA 1443/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Abhimayu Arjun Bhangire, Pune vs. ITO 14(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

ITA 1442/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Ravinanda Landmarks Unit 3, Pune vs. ITO Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2625/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2622 to 2625/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 Ravinanda Landmarks, Vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), D-38, Vastushree Complex, Pune Hyde Park, Market Yard, Pune 411 037 Maharashtra PAN : AAOFR1700Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned four appeals pertaining…

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wared-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2624/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2623/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2622/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Acgl Bbd Employees Coop Credit Society Ltd, Bhuimpal Honda Sattari Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Panaj, Panaji, Goa

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 212/PAN/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Feb 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 212/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Acgl Bbd Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Ltd. Bhuimpal Honda, Sattari, Bhuimpal, North Goa. Pan : Aaaaa8278M . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S J Kamat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/02/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066146872(1) Dt. 27/06/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 19/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr S J Kamat [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…d by the Registry is supported by well-reasoned affidavit dt. 02/09/2024 executed by the appellant. The undeliberate reason as explained from the affidavit are in our considered view sufficient to pass the tests laid in ‘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)] hence is condoned in the larger interest of justice and advanced for adjudication on merits. 3. The long and short of the case is that; the assessee is an employee co-operative credit society registered under the provisions of State Co-op.…

Sarika Zende, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Pune

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

ITA 1776/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1776/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…all ensure that all future submissions and filings are made promptly within the prescribed timelines.” 5 Sarika Dadaso Zende 7. 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. 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…

Dinesh Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 74/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…he delay is not malafide and requested for condonation of the same. He placed reliance on the following judgements and prayed for the condonation of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is in…

Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigar Sheti Shahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Khed vs. ITO Ward8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2167/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2167/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

…with a delay of 1139 days. Primarily, the moot point under consideration 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 4 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 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…