← All Phrases

“Section 249(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(2)529 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 249(2) is Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr (398 ITR 250), cited in 291 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(2)

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

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.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

National Textiles v. CIT
249 ITR 125 · 2001 · High Court
134
citing judgments

The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.

Director of Income Tax v. Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
323 ITR 249 · 2010 · High Court
128
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act after the assessee files a return in response to a Section 148 notice and scrutinizes that return.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
104 ITD 149 · 2007 · ITAT
118
citing judgments

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 597 · 2001 · High Court
99
citing judgments

Book profits under Section 115JB must include income by way of capital gains, similar to how total income is calculated under Section 45.

CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 47 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.

Judgments citing Section 249(2)

Manish Kumudchandra Metha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2407/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2407/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Manish Kumudchandra Mehta बिधम/ Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2) 7, Sudha, 2Nd Floor, Patel Compound, 14, Hanvant Bhavan, 80E, Sea Road, Napeansea Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400036. आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2409/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Manish Kumudchandra Mehta बिधम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(3) 7, Sudha, 2Nd Floor, Patel Compound, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, Sea Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai- 400007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpm9184G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. Cit) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 27-07-2022 For A.Y. 2011-12 & Ay. 2013-14. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. However, Having Perused The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, We Note That The Main Grievance Of The Assessee In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Mittal Park Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1029/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmittal Park Co-Opp. Housing Society Ltd. 44, Mittal Park, Janardhan Mhatra Marg, Ruiapark, Juhu-Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aaaam2918E ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manoj Mahimkar Respondent By : Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (For Short ‘Nfac’), Delhi Dated 06.04.2022 Under Section 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, [Hon. Cit- (A)] Has Erred On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj MahimkarFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 254Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

dated 15.03.2014. 3. As per the intimation, CPC, Bangalore made disallowance under section 80P amounting to Rs. 16,72,470/-. As per section 249(2) the due date for filing of appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) was 13.04.2014. However assessee filed the appeal only on 29.03.2019 after