Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Srd Management Company, New Delhi vs Dcit, Circle-22(2), New Delhi on 7 August, 2023 cites

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

As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, 364, in the case of Sitaram Ramchandra v. M.N. Nagrashana AIR 1960 SC 260, 265, 266 and in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi AIR 1978 SC 537, the appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last Date of the limitation and must explain the delay made thereafter day by day till the actual date of the filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 816 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 August, 1993

In the case of Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [(1994] 48 ITD 543 (AHD.), it has been held that it is a settled law that in order to get the delay condoned or excused in pursuing the remedies available to the assessee under the direct tax laws, the assessee has to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs Sudha Rani Debi And Ors on 14 February, 1978

As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, 364, in the case of Sitaram Ramchandra v. M.N. Nagrashana AIR 1960 SC 260, 265, 266 and in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi AIR 1978 SC 537, the appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last Date of the limitation and must explain the delay made thereafter day by day till the actual date of the filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 115 - D A Desai - Full Document

Andal Sweet Stall And Tiffin Dining Hall vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 January, 1981

The Madras High Court in the case of Andal Sweet Stall & Tippo Dining Hall v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 551 have laid down that a judgment or pronouncement by a court long after the period of limitation cannot be taken advantage for filing of appeal with a petition to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. It is true that the parties are entitled to wait until the last date of the limitation for filing of the appeal, but when it allow the imitator to expire and come forward with an explanation enumerating reasonable causes for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed under the statute, then the causes so shown must establish that because of some event or circumstances arising before limitation expired, he/it was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time mandated in law. Any event, cause or circumstance arising after the expiry of the limitation period cannot constitute a sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of the limitation period which may further delay in filing of the appeal, but the limitation has been allowed to expire when the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Agricultural Market Committee, ... vs Adit (Exemptions)-I, Hyd, Hyderabad on 10 May, 2019

6 Whether the inordinate delay was not due to negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant?] Reference is also made to the decision in the case of Agricultural Market Committee vs. ADIT (Exemptions-1), of Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad ITA Nos. 1275 & 1276/Hyd/2022 (Asstt. Years: 2003-04 & 2004-05), 10-02-2012. The Tribunal while refusing to condone the dealy. Inter-alia, observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mr. C. Jegaveerapandian,, ... vs Ito, Ward - I (2),, Tuticorin on 24 September, 2021

10. **Whether condoning of inordinate delay will not frustrate the legitimate expectation or corresponding right accrues in favour of the Revenue?] Shri C. Jegaveerapandian Vs ITO ITA No. 343, 2904 to 2910 /Mad/2014 ITAT 'A' Bench Chennai order dated 18.03.2015. The assessee has to establish that there was no negligence or inaction and the right granted under law to challenge the order was not abandoned. It cannot be overlooked that on expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for seeking remedy, a corresponding right accrues in favour of the other party and the same should not be lightly interfered with. The assessee has to explain the period of delay by bringing the material on record to support the sufficient cause. The assessee has to show that the assessee is vigilant during this period and the delay was beyond his control. Condoning of inordinate delay should not frustrate the legitimate expectation of the other party as the Revenue would have come to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer has been accepted by the assessee and reached finality.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1