Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Dhingra Metal Works on 4 October, 2010
(i) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del)
Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (3) vs Shri Kedar Agarwal 72 Taxc/72/2018 ... on 1 May, 2019
(ii) ITO Vs. Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 327 ITR 497 (Chhattisgarh)
Paul Mathews & Sons vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2003
(iii) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker)
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
2.1 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao @
Ram Nath Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others reported as
2002 AIR 1201 has held that acceptance of explanation furnished seeking
condonation of delay should be the rule and refusal an exception, more so
when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the
defaulting parties. Taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the
matter, the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are
high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case,
causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom
the lis terminates either by default or inaction. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in
various other decisions has taken similar view in liberally accepting the
explanation furnished by the assessee for condoning delay in filing of
appeal.
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Raja J. Rameshwar Rao vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hyderabad on 7 March, 1961
13. From all the above facts, it is clear that the transactions of this
land was adventure in the nature of trade and Apex Court in the
case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
[42 ITR 179 SC] has stated as under: