152 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 22clear
Sorted by relevance
Key Topics
Showing 1–20 of 152 · Page 1 of 8
In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove
Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018
section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963. Whenever, interpretation and intention of the expression “sufficient cause” placed before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court for consideration then, the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression requires liberal interpretation to meet the cause of justice and as intended by the legislature, thus, hyper