“Section 253(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 253Section 253(1)313 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 253(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 253(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

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.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court

268

citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Vedabhai v. Santaram

253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court

262

citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

PCIT v. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd.

84 Taxmann.com 186 · 2017 · High Court

255

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not permissible where the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. A CBDT Circular cannot override the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D to mandate such a disallowance.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court

171

citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

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.

Judgments citing Section 253(1)

Estate Officer, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

ITA 135/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(5)

filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay, the contents of which are reproduced below for ready reference:– “We enclose herewith an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against order of the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17 made under section

Estate Officer, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. TDS-CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

ITA 134/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(5)

Grand Consulting Services Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 514/IND/2023[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigrand Consulting Servides Pvt. Ito, 2(1) Ltd. Indore 403 C 4Th Floor Gravity Mall 27 Vs. Mechanic Nagar Bhamori (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcg4729N Assessee By Shri Manish Dafria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 253(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Skybridge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, (Tp)-2 Hyderbad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 154Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A

compliance with notices were initiated separately. 3. The Registry has objected that the present appeal is not maintainable as per section 253(1)(d) of the Act. In the present case, AO has passed draft assessment order on 22/11/2023. Against that draft assessment order, assessee has not filed any objections ... order dt.22.11.2023 4. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee falls within the ambit of Section 253(1)(d) of the Act and it was submitted that the draft assessment order passed by the AO was in pursuance of the directions issued

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT(International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the application for stay on the recovery of outstanding demand filed by the applicant/assessee is dismissed

ITA 4615/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, American Chemical Vs. The Deputy Society, C/O Deloitte Commissioner Of Income Haskins & Sells Llp, Tax, (It), Circle -1(1)(1), 7Th Floor, Building 10, Room No. 17, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Mittal Court, 22 Nariman Complex, Dlf City Phase- Point, Mumbai Ii, Gurgaon – 122002 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No:Aalca4959L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 234ASection 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

Panel under section 144(C(5) of the Act issued on 21/09/2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 30 October 2023, passed by the Deputy

Sindhu Seva Mandal Dharmarth Trust, Ujjain vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 486/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Sindhu Sewa Mandal Cit(Exemption ) Dharmarth Trust, Bhopal 2, Ramkrishna Colony, बनाम/Vs. Dewas Road, Ujjain. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaats8149J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sodani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2024

Section 119(2)(b)Section 253(1)

Order passed by lower authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But, however, there is no provision in section 253(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to file such an appeal by assessee against an Order passed by authorities u/s 119(2)(b). Therefore, the present

Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Satara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1378/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Rethare Bk,Tal Karad, Pune Dist. Satara – 415108 Maharashtra Pan : Aadts7345B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Joshi

Section 11(1)(d)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 253(1)

material on record. The solitary issue to be decided is whether or not the impugned order in question is an appealable order? Section 253(1) mandates filing of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal where an assessee is aggrieved by the orders passed by the following authorities: (a) an order passed

Shri Jayesh Chandulal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/SRT/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2000-01) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Chandulal Shah, The Ito, Vs. A-74, Saify Society, Near Jain Ward – 3(3)(2), Temple, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. Old Jurisdiction Ito, Ward- 9(2), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzps8832Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)

filed the affidavit. The contents of the assessee`s petition for condonation of delay, are reproduced below: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.02.2020 vide ITA No.50/SRT/2020 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2000-01 made