Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, Moga vs Dcit, C-1 (E), Chandigarh on 29 March, 2019

Shri Govind Guru University,Godhra vs The Dy.Cit, Circle-2, Exemption, ... on 4 June, 2025

"5. The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is a substantial delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. The appellant has failed to justify the in ordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be I.T.A No. 610/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 3 Shri Govind Guru University vs. DCIT made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anjali Jewellers, Kolkata vs Pcit, Central-1, Kolkata on 30 September, 2021

"61. So from the aforesaid dictum of law laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during first search on 29/05/2012, we have no hesitations to hold that for A.Y. 2009-10, the AO could have only reiterated the assessment intimated u/s. 143(1) of the Act, because the time for issuance of scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) expired on 30/09/2010 and the assessment for this relevant assessment year, therefore, was not pending before the AO on the date of search on 29/05/2012 and, therefore, is an unabated assessment. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon 'ble High Court, the AO could not have disturbed the assessment already existing without the aid of incriminating materials seized during search on 29/05/2012 (first search). Therefore, the order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous order. Therefore, without finding the order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous order. Therefore, without finding the order of the AO to be erroneous, the Ld. Principal C1T lacks jurisdiction to usurp the revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1