Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Cenzer Industries Ltd. Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, 5(1)(3) . on 27 September, 2021

Shri Ravi Dipakbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs The Pr. Cit-6, Ahmedabad on 26 May, 2023

9. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cenzer Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO in Notice of Motion Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 dated 15.1.2016 while condoning the delay of 865 days reiterated the principles laid down in Maniben Devraj Shah(supra), taking note of right accrued to the successful litigants on the expiry of litigation to treat the dispute as settled and arrange its affairs on that basis, held that this right of successful defendant could be disturbed for condoning the delay of filing appeal by the litigants only when the litigants explained the delay, and there is bonafide reasons for not having moved within the prescribed time i.e. by not being diligent. The reason for explaining the delay, it was held had to be plausible and reasonable so as to enable the court to exercise its discretion. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Court in this regard at para-11 of its order is as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jiichem Laboratories (India) Ltd,, ... vs Ito, Ward-2(1)(2)., Ahmedabad on 12 July, 2023

19. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cenzer Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO in Notice of Motion Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 dated 15.1.2016 while condoning the delay of 865 days reiterated the principles laid down in Maniben Devraj Shah(supra), taking note of right accrued to the successful litigants on the expiry of litigation to treat the dispute as settled and arrange its affairs on that basis, ITA No.835/Ahd/2018 and 1148/Ahd/2019 & 2 Others 22 held that this right of successful defendant could be disturbed for condoning the delay of filing appeal by the litigants only when the litigants explained the delay, and there is bonafide reasons for not having moved within the prescribed time i.e. by not being diligent. The reason for explaining the delay, it was held had to be plausible and reasonable so as to enable the court to exercise its discretion. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Court in this regard at para-11 of its order is as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ahmedabad Jilla Traffic Education ... vs The Ito, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad on 22 December, 2023

Once the rectification application was rejected papers were sent to the Police Department for necessary direction as the President of the Trust who is the Superintendent of Police who has to take the decision. Unfortunately the file was misplaced as the staff concerned was transferred. More particularly, the delay is from the date of rejection of rectification application till the date of filing the appeal. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123, Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Others, 167 ITR 471, Maniben Devraj Shab vs. Municipal Corporation of Birhan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157 and also decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Cenzer Industries Limited vs. ITO - notice of motion Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 dated 15.01.2016. The Ld. AR further submitted that the ITR 7 was wrongly filed where schedule I & J were incorrectly filed stating "Not applicable". Pertinent to that when viewed from entirely when form No.10 has been filed within time and, therefore, the disallowance merely on technicality is unjust. The Ld. AR relied upon the Circular No.14(XL 35) dated 11.04.1955 which mandates the Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) after condoning the delay and decide the matter on merit.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1