Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)
Kitty Steels Limited, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 11 July, 2012 cites

N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998

vii) In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observed that "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of 11 ITA Nos. 840 & 841 / Hyd/2010 M/s. Kitty Steels Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2563 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ram Mohan Kabra on 12 January, 1999

16. The learned DR submitted that the inordinate delay of around 10 years cannot be considered as reasonable and the appeals cannot be admitted as there is no good and sufficient reason to admit. He further submitted that the assessee has always been non-cooperative with the Department and he relied on the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (257 ITR 773) wherein held that "The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by 12 ITA Nos. 840 & 841 / Hyd/2010 M/s. Kitty Steels Ltd.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 64 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961

======================== granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the assessee a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. In the present case, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not show any good and sufficient reason to condone the delays. The delays are not properly explained by the assessee. We find no reason for condoning such delays for the assessment years under consideration. The delay is nothing but negligence and inaction of the assessee which have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. In our opinion, there exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 1500 days for the years under consideration. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 816 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

M.S. Nulon India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 January, 1995

21. The learned DR also relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of M.S. Nulon India Ltd. vs. CIT (219 ITR 736) (Del) wherein held that the assessee being in the profession of tax consultant cannot justifiably claim that it had no proper legal guidance. The delay could not be condoned on this count. He submitted that the assessee has not explained the delay in sufficient reasons and the reasons given are not supported by proper evidence. He also relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Advani & Co. (72 ITR 395), Raju Ramachandra Bhangde (148 ITR 391) (Bom), Mst.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 Next