DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause for the delay was a discretion conferred upon the Court and it can be interfered with only if it was shown to have been exercised in a perverse manner and so long as the discretion is shown to have been exercised properly and having regard to the entire conspectus

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause for the delay was a discretion conferred upon the Court and it can be interfered with only if it was shown to have been exercised in a perverse manner and so long as the discretion is shown to have been exercised properly and having regard to the entire conspectus

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of

condonation of delay is concerned, he submits that this Court has been adopting a liberal approach on the ground that the procedure is handmaid of justice and the Court must always promote the cause of substantial justice. COURT’S REASONING 14. He lastly submits that the scope of Sections 254(2) and 260A

CIT vs. ELEGANT TRAVELS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

condonation of the delay in filing and re-filing two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income

CIT vs. ARVINDER SINGH

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

condonation of the delay in filing and re-filing two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. DELHI MAHARASHTRIYA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA 373/2025 3. The appeal has been filed under Section 260A

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short) 'fwo sLtbstitttltal ITA Nos 1 5412010,'t1312010,'71 512010' 109212010, t I0l/20 l0' 1103/2010. 1104/2010, lll2l20l0 &117412010 Pasc l o['22 2012:DHC:7826-DB questions of law were frarned by this Court ot 21 11 2011 rn l'l'A Nos 75412010 773/2070 anJ 77512010. which are as follows

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short) 'fwo sLtbstitttltal ITA Nos 1 5412010,'t1312010,'71 512010' 109212010, t I0l/20 l0' 1103/2010. 1104/2010, lll2l20l0 &117412010 Pasc l o['22 questions of law were frarned by this Court ot 21 11 2011 rn l'l'A Nos 75412010 773/2070 anJ 77512010. which are as follows - "(l) IWtether the Inconte

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short) 'fwo sLtbstitttltal ITA Nos 1 5412010,'t1312010,'71 512010' 109212010, t I0l/20 l0' 1103/2010. 1104/2010, lll2l20l0 &117412010 Pasc l o['22 questions of law were frarned by this Court ot 21 11 2011 rn l'l'A Nos 75412010 773/2070 anJ 77512010. which are as follows - "(l) IWtether the Inconte

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short) 'fwo sLtbstitttltal ITA Nos 1 5412010,'t1312010,'71 512010' 109212010, t I0l/20 l0' 1103/2010. 1104/2010, lll2l20l0 &117412010 Pasc l o['22 2012:DHC:7826-DB questions of law were frarned by this Court ot 21 11 2011 rn l'l'A Nos 75412010 773/2070 anJ 77512010. which are as follows

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short) 'fwo sLtbstitttltal ITA Nos 1 5412010,'t1312010,'71 512010' 109212010, t I0l/20 l0' 1103/2010. 1104/2010, lll2l20l0 &117412010 Pasc l o['22 2012:DHC:7826-DB questions of law were frarned by this Court ot 21 11 2011 rn l'l'A Nos 75412010 773/2070 anJ 77512010. which are as follows

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short) 'fwo sLtbstitttltal ITA Nos 1 5412010,'t1312010,'71 512010' 109212010, t I0l/20 l0' 1103/2010. 1104/2010, lll2l20l0 &117412010 Pasc l o['22 questions of law were frarned by this Court ot 21 11 2011 rn l'l'A Nos 75412010 773/2070 anJ 77512010. which are as follows - "(l) IWtether the Inconte

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals