Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 – Appellant
Versus
Modipon Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.16017/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 640 days in re-filing the appeal.]
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
1.1. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 640 days.
2. Mr Shashwat Bajpai, who appears on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent/assessee, does not oppose the prayer made in the application.
3. The delay is condoned. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
ITA 196/2023
4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 1987-88. The appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the "Tribunal"].
5. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the "Act"] was payable by the respondent/assessee, in respect of the demand raised via the order dated 29.03.1990.
5.1. This assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.
5.2. By virtue of this order, the res
The liability to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises only with respect to the amount specified in the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Act, which was ....
The court's decision was based on the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal.
Clarity in penalty notices and the debatable nature of issues at the relevant time can influence the imposition of penalties.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
The incriminating material found during the search must concern the assessment year in issue for the proceedings to be valid.
The absence of substantial question of law can lead to the closure of appeals.
The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial question of law arising for consideration and the coverage of the issue by a previous court decision.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
The court's decision was influenced by its previous ruling on a similar issue, indicating the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
