|
|
« From the Courts » |
---|
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs | The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Saharanpur. Vs. Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed through Legal Heirs Smt. Mushyada Begum, S/Shri Mohd. Azhar, Athar and Moyeen, 1/142, Mohalla Qureshian, Saharanpur | ACIT, Central Circle 07, New Delhi. vs. M/s. R. J. Corp Ltd., F 2/7, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase I, New Delhi. | Experion Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. F-9, First Floor, Manish Plaza 1, Plot No. 7, M. L. U, Sector-10, Dwarka Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle-8(2) New Delhi | USK Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. E-172, DDA, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Vs. ITO Ward-27(1) New Delhi | Sh. Chakra Dhari Sureka, M-14B, South Extn. Part-II, New Delhi Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, New Delhi | ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, 299, DEEPALI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI Vs. ITO, WARD 40(3), NEW DELHI | B.M. Malhotra & Sons Ltd., C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), New Delhi. | The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 2) | Ravindera Hire Purchase & Finance E-1/58, Sector-11, Faridabad Haryana Vs. ITO Ward-2(2) Faridabad Haryana | SSE Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 6926, FF, Jaipuria Mills, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, New Delhi. Vs. ITO Ward 24(2) C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. | NANAK RAM JAISINGHANI, C/O RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, L-7A (LGF), SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-2, NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 13(1), NEW DELHI |
|
|
|
|
|
« Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO... | PCIT vs. Aarham Softronics (Supreme Court)... » |
Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) |
|
February, 22nd 2019 |
S. 260A Condonation of delay of 1662 days: The High Court should not take a technical approach and refuse to condone the delay when appeals for earlier years with identical issues are already pending before it
It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case on the ground of delay, when it has to decide the question of law between the parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment year. For this reason we set aside the order of the High Court; condone the delay for filing the appeal and direct to decide the appeal on merits.
|
|
|