← All Phrases

“extension of limitation”

Assessment ProceduresSection 153Section 153561 judgments

The decision most relied on for extension of limitation is Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (2 SCC 107), cited in 451 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on extension of limitation

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Income Tax, (1989) 111 ITR 377 (SC) and Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Limited v. CIT
224 ITR 342 · 1997 · Supreme Court
60
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the expansion, extension, or betterment of an existing business, or for improvisation that is part of the existing business, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Payments made for acquiring technical know-how and exclusive rights for setting up a new business can be capital expenditure.

CIT v. Bajrang Textiles
294 ITR 561 · 2007 · High Court
50
citing judgments

A direction for special audit under Section 142(2A), issued near the expiry of the limitation period primarily to gain an extension of time or with instructions beyond the section's scope, is illegal, rendering the subsequent assessment time-barred.

Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co.
1 SCC 255 · 1969 · Reported
43
citing judgments

When a new statutory provision is substituted for an existing one, the legislative intent is typically that the old provision is deemed deleted and does not remain in force unless there is a clear intention to keep it alive.

Ganesh Dass Khanna v. Income Tax Officer
156 Taxmann.com 417 · 2023 · High Court
34
citing judgments

The time limits for reopening assessments under the new regime are reduced to three years, with an extension to ten years only for serious tax evasion cases involving concealment of Rs. 50 lakhs or more.

Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
160 Taxmann.com 13 · 2024 · High Court
21
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 for AY 2014-15 is invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, especially when the extended period of 6 years under section 149 may not apply.

Delhi in ACIT v. Soul Space
117 Taxmann.com 395 · 2020 · High Court
18
citing judgments

An order for special audit under Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act must be passed within the prescribed time, including any extensions. An assessment order based on a special audit report submitted beyond the permissible period is void.

08 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. v. DCIT
334 ITR 240 · 2011 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The Revenue Authorities cannot make a reference for assessment years if no information could have been provided for those years, and any extension of limitation based on such an invalid reference is impermissible.

Judgments citing extension of limitation

DCIT Tax - (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S the J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

ITA 2257/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2257/मुं/2021("न.व. 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The J.K.Trust Bombay, Ground Floor, New Hind House, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaatt-0611-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ] Dated 21/06/2021, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 104 Days. The Assessing Officer Has Filed An Application Explaining Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Attributed To Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking In To 2 Consideration The Hardship Caused To The Litigants In The Extra Ordinary Circumstances The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India Taking Suo-Motu Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation Reported As 132 Taxamann.Com 123 Extended The Period Of Limitation Under General Laws Of Limitation & Special Laws. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Within The Extended Period Of Limitations, Hence, No Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

hardship caused to the litigants in the extra ordinary circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India taking suo-motu Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported as 132 taxamann.com 123 extended the period of limitation under General Laws of Limitation and Special Laws. The present appeal has been filed

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 78/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.78/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd बिधम/ Cit(A) Ruchi House, Royal Palms, Room No.605, 6Th Floor, Vs. Survey No. 169, Aarey Milk Pratishtha Bhavan, Colony, Near Mayur Nagar, Maharshi Karve Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400065. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2892L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. S. Nagar Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That There Was A Delay Of Few Days In Filing This Appeal & From A Perusal Of The Reasons Given, It Is Noted That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 26.10.2021Was Passed During The Period Of Covid-19 & Therefore As Per The Direction Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, The Limitation Period Of Filing Even Appeal Stands Extended. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed On 30.06.2020 On The Ground That There Was Delay Of 500 Days & Refusing To Condone

For Appellant: Shri S. S. NagarFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

Resolution Plan Implementation Date as per NCLAT order was dated 23.12.2019. Thereafter, the Pandemic started from March, 2020 and the Extension of Limitation period was ordered by Hon’ble Supreme Court suo-moto which we take judicial notice. Thus, the delay caused in filing of appeal before