Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)
The Nilgiris Diary Farm Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 31 August, 2018 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Isro Satellite Centre on 28 October, 2011

The Hon'hle ITA ITA.1046/Bang/2016 Page - 5 No.425/Bang/2012 Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. ISRO Satellite Centre, ITA No. 532/2008 dated 28.10.2011 has condoned the delay of five years in filing appeal before them which was explained due to delay in getting legal advice from its legal advisors and getting approval from Department of Science and PMO. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Court found that the very liability of the assessee was non-existent and therefore condoned the delay in filing appeal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

i n c l u d i n g t h e j u d i c i a l pronouncements cited. Admittedly, there was a delay of about 11 months in filing the appeal for asst. year 2006-07 before the CIT(A) which was not condoned by the Id CIT(A) and the appeal was thereby dismissed in limine, without being heard or adjudicated on merits. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Others (167 ITR 467) (SC), while laying down the principles for considering the matters of condonation of delay in filing appeals, has stated that substantial justice should prevail over considerations. The Hon'ble Court also explained that approach should be taken. The doctrine must be applied in a natural common sense and pragmatic manner. Considering the aforesaid principles, we find from the details on record that even the order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was virtually passed ex parte with no examination of the issue on merits of levy of penalty since the assessee had not responded to the show cause notices issued. So also before the ld CIT (A), by rejecting the assessee's petition for condonation of delay, the issue on which penalty was levied was once again not considered and adjudicated on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Johnson Matthey Chemicals [I] P.Ltd., ... vs Addl Cit, on 12 December, 2017

• The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v. Govt. of UP [1972-LL- 1110-1-(SC)] • Spporthi Sadan Convent v. CIT [(2016) 68 taxmann.245 (Kar)] • Jyoti Chemicals v. DCIT [(2009) 27 SOT 433 (Mum)] • Molex India Tooling P. Ltd v. ACIT [IT(TP)A.839/B/2009] • JCIT v. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd [(2007) 104 ITD 149] ITA.1046/Bang/2016 Page - 8 It was submitted by the Ld. DR that there was a delay in filing the appeal for a period of 407 days and the assessee before us is a private limited company and further assessee was aware of its statutory right of filing the appeal. However for the reasons best known to the assessee, it has not filed appeal before the CIT (A) in time.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 38 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

Nethra Jyothi Trust, Chennai vs Dcit, Coimbatore on 27 October, 2017

08. In our view, the law is clear that liberal attitude in condoning the delay should not be encouraged, rather discretion should be exercised by the Bench in a just and fair manner. A company which is having significant presence throughout Karnataka and is conscious of its rights and obligations under the Act, if chooses to remain indifferent in filing the appeal, than such an assessee it cannot be permitted to seek condonation of the delay in the garb of levelling allegation against the professionals without any basis . The coordinate bench in identical facts, in the matter of Jyothi Chemicals v. DCIT in para 13 has held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S Raghavendra Construction vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 17 March, 2008

03. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that there was sufficient reason for not appearing before the CIT (A) on the date of hearing. For that purposes, the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the decision of the coordinate bench in the matter of M/s. Raghavendra Constructions v. ITO [ITA.425/Bang/2012, dt.14.12.2012], wherein the coordinate bench in paras 13 to 15, held as under :
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1