|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1466 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 1306
Act of a person of unsound mind - doctrine of burden of proof - Rebuttal of presumption - mental illness caused by Schizophrenia - attacking the deceased - HELD THAT:- Before the Court of Sessions, an application Under Section 329 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the Appellant. Even while considering the application for bail, the Court noticed the inability of the Appellant to understand the ongoing proceedings. Two doctors were examined as AWs 1 and 2, for the fact that he was indeed suffering from schizophrenia. AW2 was examined to show that he was taking the treatment earlier at GMC Hospital at Bhiwani. AW1 is the doctor who examined him after the occurrence on the orders of the trial court. She had deposed that he was indeed suffering from chronic schizophrenia - The fact that he was unable to understand the act committed, and his subsequent incarceration was taken note of. While issuing the first certificate, this Government doctor in clear terms had stated that the Appellant was not fit enough to stand the trial. However, she gave another certificate after treating him as an in-patient to the effect that he could stand trial thereafter.
The Court of Sessions and the High Court rendered the conviction on merits. The plea of insanity was also taken. It was accordingly rejected on the ground that PW6, the brother of the grandfather of the Appellant, did not find any abnormality and that his mother has not been examined. Further, PW10 being the doctor who physically examined the Accused after the incident, stated that the Accused was mentally well.
The mere fact that the Appellant subsequently became fit to face the trial is sufficient enough to render an order of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity - both the Trial Court and the High Court were influenced by the nature of the act while ignoring the condition of the Appellant and the fact that the burden on the Accused is one of preponderance of probability.
The order dated 25.07.2006 of the trial court of conviction and sentence of the Appellant punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment and order dated 02.06.2008 of the High Court affirming the same are set aside - The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges charged with. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1305
Transfer of the capital asset - year of assessment - appellants [widow of deceased assessee] and her three children are joint owners of property entered into a JDA - transfer of capital asset u/s 2(47) - According to the Revenue, the liability to pay capital gains tax stems out of the JDA - HELD THAT:- As combined reading of Clauses 6.2, 14.1 to 14.3 and 21 makes it clear that the delivery of possession to the developer is only for the performance of development/construction. Therefore, the view taken by the A.O and the ITAT that transfer was effected in the A.Y.2009-10 and making the assessees liable for payment of capital gains tax is perverse and untenable. Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1304
Income taxable in India - receipts on account of support and maintenance services to its customers in India - Fees for Technical Services (‘FTS’) under the Act and also India-Singapore DTAA - DRP has arrived at the conclusion of taxability of IT Support service charges as FTS by distinguishing the earlier years’ tribunal orders - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case[2022 (7) TMI 744 - ITAT PUNE] DRP in the earlier orders did not draw any such distinction and held the entire amount as chargeable to tax as royalty in the light of the decision in Samsung [2011 (10) TMI 195 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the decision in Engineering Analysis [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] had been delivered by then, based on which the decision of the AO, treating the composite amount as royalty, was reversed.
When neither the AO nor the DRP had treated the two streams of income as separate from each other, having different connotation in terms of the DTAA, there could have been no question of the Tribunal setting up a new case. Be that as it may, we have eloquently discussed the issue above and reached the conclusion that the income from IT Support services, even if viewed independent of software license income, is not chargeable to tax. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1303
Reopening of assessment - notice in the name of the firm as it did not exist - Period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As the firm ceased to exist on 31.03.2006 and after the assessment of the year 2006-07, since there was no transfer of any surety in favour of any members, the proceedings u/s 149 have to be set aside on the ground that they are issued after a gap of six years.
Further, the order imposing a penalty was set aside and the explanation given by the petitioner was accepted for the assessment year 2006-2007- Till date, no appeal has been filed against order dated 12.03.2013 and thus it attained finality. The department had thus accepted the dissolution of the firm. The department is now bound by the licence issued to the petitioner (P-3). It was Raja Ram HUF who became owner and HUF being separate identity had to file separate return. The word Management has been used in the partnership deed. After dissolution of the firm, there was no transfer of any asset to the partners of the firm.
Present petition is allowed and notice issued are set aside.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1302
Condonation of delay of 1471 days in filing the appeal - only explanation provided for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court is that after the implementation of the GST Regime, the Indirect Taxes Department has undergone a major reshuffling in terms of the Commissionerates and their respective jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that the GST Regime was rolled out with effect from 01.07.2017 and the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 was passed thereafter. The department was duly represented before the learned CESTAT. The proceedings had emanated from the order in original passed on 31.03.2010, which was carried in appeal by the respondent that was disposed of by an order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and there could be no ground for confusion as to the transfer of jurisdiction of the officer that has passed the order in original.
Thus, it is difficult to accept that the appellant was handicapped in any manner in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the relevant Commissionerate. In any view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept that it would be apposite to condone the delay of more than four years on the aforesaid ground. The contention that confusion had persisted for such a long period cannot be countenanced.
Application dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1301
Correct head of income - characterization of receipts - lease rental income earned - “income from business” or “income from house property” - HELD THAT:- Tribunal upheld the action of Ld. CIT(A) by passing the order in M/s. Mindspace Business Park Pvt. Ltd [2022 (9) TMI 1022 - ITAT MUMBAI] taking note of the CBDT Circular No. 16/2017 dated 25.04.2017 which clarified that the income arising from letting out of premises/developed space along with amenities in an Industrial Park/SEZ need to be charged to tax under head “Profit and Gains from Business”, and was pleased to allow the claim of that assessee.
Depreciation on assets claimed in reassessment proceedings - whether an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return? - As we upheld the action of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the assessee to change the head of income in an abated assessment year pursuant to a notice of AO u/s 153A of the Act, (ie. change of rental income from “income from house property” to ‘income from business profession’), the AO is directed to re-compute the depreciation claimed by the assessee treating AY. 2016-17 as the first year in which the claim has been made and for that adopt the original cost of asset for computing the profit arising out of this business. And the AO is directed to compute the depreciation claimed by the assessee in accordance to the law.
Disallowance of interest expenses which was attributable to borrowed fund for making payment - It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the interest expenditure by following the decision of Tribunal orders in Assessee’s own case on this issue from AY. 2006-07 to AY. 2008-09 [2017 (11) TMI 719 - ITAT MUMBAI] and he further noted the Tribunal orders Assessee’s own case from AY. 2009- 10 to AY. 2011-12; and moreover, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that this Tribunal has allowed this issue up to AY. 2015-16 [2022 (11) TMI 1406 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Therefore, we confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. Since there is no change of facts or law, revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1300
Transferring the investigation triggered off by a complaint of Respondent No.3 to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) - generation of funds through forgery and criminal offences - the funds invested in shares of several companies - HELD THAT:- Though the allegations are against individuals, before the High Court, plea of the respondent no.3 was that the accused persons (one of them being petitioner before us) ran several companies and investigation of those companies and other companies of which the accused persons were directors could unfold the truth. It is also the allegation against the accused persons that they are involved in parking of black money and indulging in other illegal activities relating to the share market. Thus, though the allegations are against individuals, they also run several companies and investigation into those companies might be necessary to unravel the illegalities, if any. The regular police force may not be best equipped to deal with offences of this nature.
Attention has been drawn to the provisions of subSection(2) of Section 210 of the 2013 Act, which stipulates that where an order is passed by a Court or Tribunal in any proceeding before it that the affairs of a company ought to be investigated, the Central Government shall order an investigation into the affairs of that company. This provision applies to proceedings arising out of complaints of illegalities of corporate entities, and the requirement that it would be for the Central Government to order investigation would not apply to cases of this nature - The SFIO would come within the ambit of power of that Constitutional Court, as an investigating agency, upon whom such direction could be issued. The statutory provisions containing the manner of engaging such agency would not bind the Constitutional Court in issuing directions for investigation to reach at the root of the offences alleged before it.
The High Court has given adequate reason for directing investigation by the SFIO and these reasons are not inadequate.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1299
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - under-reporting of money transferred abroad which does not generate proceeds of crime which is sine qua non for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is seeking quashing of ECIR and according to the Supreme Court in Kirit Shrimankar vs U.O.I [2014 (12) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a writ remedy on account of issuance of summons at the stage of investigation/enquiry is highly premature.
There is no violation of any fundamental right or even legal right of the petitioner warranting interference of this Hon'ble Court at the stage of summons - In addition, there are allegations in the complaint u/s 51 regarding evasion of tax. The allegations are being investigated. Whether there is generation of proceeds of crime or not is being investigated and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition as of today is premature.
The prayer for quashing of LoC at this stage again will be premature and hence is rejected. However, the petitioner has travelled in the past and needs to travel for his work. The liberty of the petitioner to travel abroad for the purpose of business cannot be curtailed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1298
Recovery of Erroneous Refund - Fraudulently availing excess refund under the N/N. 56/2002 by over-valuing the goods cleared - HELD THAT:- On going through the provisions of the Notification, it is clear that the refund of duty as per the said Notification is different from refund of duty envisaged in Section 11B - the provisions of Section 11A, as far as recovery of “erroneous refund” is concerned, have no applicability to the refunds under the impugned notification.
The issue is no longer res integra. The jurisdictional High Court of J&K has gone into the very same issue in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [2023 (7) TMI 661 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] and decided the matter in favour of the appellants holding that the refund sanctioned by the adjudicating authority in favour of the respondent was after proper application of mind and by passing of speaking orders and therefore, cannot be termed as 'erroneous refund' for the purposes of section 11A of the Act.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- When the impugned order is not maintainable on merits, the question of penalty on the company or Shri Dinesh Garg would not arise.
The impugned order is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1297
Maintainability of appeal - Classification of imported goods - Cards (Populated Printed Circuit Boards) OSLM-5-100G-WL3N for DWDM Equipment-Photonic Service Switch (PSS) 1830 - classified under Customs Tariff Sub-heading 8517 7010 or under CTH 8517 62 90? - Revenue submits that the revenue has not indeed challenged the order(s) in the similar matters as mentioned in the Order(s) impugned.
HELD THAT:- It is thought appropriate to interfere in the impugned order(s) - Appeals are dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1296
Approval of Resolution Plan - It is submitted that for the mere fact that Appellant did not file its claim, Appellant shall not be disentitled from distribution as Secured Creditor - HELD THAT:- From the facts brought on the record, there is no dispute that at the time when claim was filed by the Appellant on 01.06.2022, the CoC has already approved the Resolution Plan. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Tax Officer (1) vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd. [2022 (9) TMI 317 - SUPREME COURT] was considering a claim which were invited on 05.10.2017 which was much prior to amendment in the Regulation, as has been noted in the judgment.
In the facts of the present case, the plan approved has also been implemented and the amount received has been disbursed to the Financial Creditors and other claimants as per the Resolution Plan. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant being a Secured Creditor as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Tax Officer (1) vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd. he ought to have been allocated amount as per Section 53 at par with the Secured Financial Creditors cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case.
When there is no claim filed by the Appellant within time, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in approving the Resolution Plan, which was approved by the CoC much prior to filing of the claim by the Appellant.
Thus, no relief can be granted to the Appellant in the facts of the present case - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1295
Rights of detenue under COFEPOSA Act - contraband Gold - whether the detenu can ask for any and every document? - HELD THAT:- After referring to the various decisions the Apex Court in Powanmal [1999 (1) TMI 538 - SUPREME COURT] held that every document and materials which finds a passing reference in the course of narration of facts in the ground of detention need not be supplied. But such documents, non-supply of which would prejudice the detenu in making an effective representation are to be supplied to him. The reason is that non-supply of such documents would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and being afforded the opportunity of making effective representation against the detention order.
The petitioner brought to attention a few decisions of both the Apex Court and different High Courts, where the question, whether non supply of various documents amounted to denial of the right of the detenu having the effect of vitiating the order of detention, was considered. It is not proposed to deliberate upon those decisions since those are decisions on facts and no proposition of law different from what has been enunciated in the aforesaid decisions was evolved.
In ANKIT ASHOK JALAN VERSUS UNION OF IDNIA AND ORS. [2020 (3) TMI 248 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court held that the consideration for revocation of a detention order is limited to examining whether the order conforms with the provisions of law whereas the recommendation of the Advisory Board is on the sufficiency of material for detention, which alone is either confirmed or not accepted by the appropriate Government. Therefore the detenu cannot be heard to contend that the documents which were not placed before the detaining authority and found not to have a vitiating effect on the subjective satisfaction of that authority should have been supplied to the detenu.
In the above background only demand of the detenu for the documents can be considered. The grievance of the petitioner is about non-supply of five items of documents - Those are not relied upon documents. No reference to document No. 1, recording of audio chats between the detenu and Sri. Biju V Joy is there in the grounds of detention. Item No. 3, Exts.P2, P3 and P6 are post detention order documents and there could not be any mention of them in the grounds of detention. The other three documents do have casual mentioning, but the Detaining Authority did not rely on them.
As far as the show cause notices sent the co-accused and their replies are concerned there is only passing reference in the grounds in support of Ext.P8 detention order. In such circumstances, the detenu can resort to the plea of invalidity of the detention order for non-supply of those documents only if he substantiates that the non-supply caused prejudice to him. It is also his obligation to explain in what way those documents are relevant for his making representation.
Exts.P12 and P13 are the representations submitted by the detenu in which he made requests for those documents as well as Exts.P2, P3 and P6. The detenu did not state in what way those documents were relevant in the matter of his making representation. In this Writ Petition also, it is not explained how his right has been prejudiced as a result of non-supply of those documents. When Exts.P2, P3 and P6 were produced by him in this Writ Petition, his demand for those documents appears fallacious. In the case of documents which are relied upon by the Detaining Authority, it is the absolute right of the detenu to get copies within the time prescribed in Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act - The detenu did not state in what way such documents are relevant for him to make his representation and how the non-supply has affected his right to make a meaningful and effective representation. In such circumstances, his attack to the detention order on the ground of non-supply of documents also fails.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1294
Income taxable in India - taxing of the sale of software and subscribers as royalty income - HELD THAT:- As the issue raised in the instant matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] as held amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of 5 which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income-tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1293
Reopening of Assessment u/s 147 - Whether order passed u/s 148A(d) is passed in breach of principles of natural justice? - submission is on the premise that the notice dated 23/03/2022 was received by the assessee by post on 31/03/2022 and the order under clause (d) of section 148A came to be passed on the same date without giving any opportunity, whatsoever, to the assessee to show cause - HELD THAT:- The averments on oath, which were extracted, have not been rebutted by the petitioner and we see no difficulty in accepting the veracity thereof. In this view of the matter, the submission that the notice and the subsequent order falls foul of the principles of natural justice must be rejected.
The next submission is that the premise, on which the notice is issued, is unfounded and contrary to the record maintained by the petitioner-society. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner deposited Rs. 15,0000/- as time deposit, and amount of Rs. 59,73,800/- with Khamgaon Urban Cooperative Bank in the year 2014-15 is incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner has no bank account with the said bank. We are afraid that in writ jurisdiction, it would not be permissible for us to consider the said contention, which the petitioner has not raised before the assessing authority. We have already noticed supra, that if any illegal or unjust demand of tax is made, the remedy of the assessee lies elsewhere and not by directly invoking the writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1292
Deduction u/s 10A - interest income has not been derived from exempt industrial undertaking - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that earning interest from the surplus funds deposited with bank, bonds as well as loans to the employees and subsidiaries are eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act subject to the quantification and attribution of such interest to 10A units by the AO. The assessee shall furnish evidence to established its claim u/s 10A of the act which as derived from business of Software Technology Park of India (STPI) units. So ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed subject to the verification and quantification by the AO.
Disallowance u/s 14A - expenditure incurred on earning exempt income - HELD THAT:- Honourable High Court of Bombay in case of CIT vs. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. [2020 (11) TMI 277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that "no doubt expenditure u/s 14A includes both direct and indirect expenditure but that expenditure must have a proximate relationship with exempt income and surmises or conjunctures is no answer." So in the instant case when the assessee has purchased UTI bonds in 1998 and earned interest income thereon in A.Y. 2005 – 06 no proximate relationship in the expenditure disallowed by the AO with the exempt income has been established but mechanically applied rule 8D which is not applicable for the year under consideration. So in these circumstances we are of the considered view that disallowance made under section 14A by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Computation of deduction of deduction 10A - AO is directed to allow the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 10A of the Act by including the same both in the total turnover as well as export turnover.
AO has added back the amount of losses of the assessee's Chennai unit and Goregaon units on the ground that section 10A is an exemption section and not a deduction section - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is no longer res-integra having been covered by the order passed in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P) Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 658 - ITAT, CHENNAI] and this issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee in case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings. Hence, ground numbers 2 and 3 are determined against the Revenue.
Addition on account of notional interest from overseas subsidiaries on account of outstanding balances lying with them - HELD THAT:- As we are of the considered view that when undisputedly AEs are not the end customers and their remittance to the assessee in turn depends upon the remittances by the end customers it cannot be said that the AEs have benefited because of delay in remitting the receivables. These facts have been duly thrashed by the Ld. CIT(A). So we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground decided against the Revenue.
Addition on account of interest charged to the overseas subsidiaries in respect of the loans granted to them as well as deemed guarantee charge - CIT(A) deleted this addition which is under challenge - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly reached the conclusion that when the interest has already been charged by the average LIBOR rate as discussed in the impugned order the adjustment made by the Ld. TPO/AO on account of arms length is not sustainable in the eyes of law and similarly adjustment made by the assessee on account of guarantee fees also not sustainable as AEs have directly taken the loan from the assessee and as such there is no question of making payment of guarantee fee. So we find no ground to interfere into the findings returned by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence determined against the Revenue.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1291
Depreciation allowance on Cisco Phone - items functionally dependent on computers - 15% or 60% - AO treated the Cisco Phone as part of plant and machinery and did not allow the depreciation rate of 60% claimed by the assessee applicable for computers - HELD THAT:- As the identical issue was considered in the case of M/s. Cisco Systems Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 890 - ITAT BANGALORE] as held items which are, functional dependent on computers are definitely part of computer and the items with independent existence may not be computers but wherever it is found that the device is not used independent of the computer system and the purpose of audio visual conferencing and video streaming, the same shall be treated as computers and wherever it is used independently for any other purpose it shall be treated as plant and machinery. The AO, shall, thus allow depreciation at the rate of 60% on the equipment which could be classified as computer and at the rate of 15% on the equipment which could be classified as plant and machinery. This issue is accordingly set aside to the file of the AO for re-adjudication
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the file to the AO. AO is directed to follow the ratio laid down by the ITAT in the aforesaid order. Assessee appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1290
Exemption u/s 11 - rejecting the application seeking registration u/s.12AA - CIT(E) after verifying the documents provided by the assessee-society found that the assessee society is generating substantial surpluses - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, we found that the CIT(E) has provided only one opportunity to the assessee to provide the details as sought for, for which, as per assessee could not submit the details within the time. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of principle of natural justice, as fairly admitted by both the sides, we set aside the issue to the file of CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the same after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1289
Change in the share holding of the allottee company - liability to pay Change in the Share Holding Charges (CIS charges) as per the policy of Greater NOIDA dated 13.7.2021 - HELD THAT:- In view of the categorical stand of the petitioner in the writ petition which could not be successfully refuted by the respondent Greater NOIDA we are required to take note of Clause 3.4 of the transfer policy of Greater NOIDA, issued by the office order dated 13.7.2021 - In view of the provision in Clause 3.4 of the policy, no CIC charges can be demanded from the petitioner company in view of the established stand of the petitioner that it was merely a change in the name of the original allottee/leasee company and there is no change in the ownership or share holding of the allottee company.
The demand notice dated 14.06.2021 is found illegal, contrary to the own policy of the Greater NOIDA promulgated by the office order dated 13.7.2021.
As there is no justification for demand of CIC charges, while quashing the demand notice, the writ petition is allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1288
Income taxable in India - taxability of receipts towards software and subscription - AO had held the receipt to be royalty and taxed it @10% on the gross basis as per Article 12 in India-Netherland treaty - HELD THAT:- The issues which arise in this special leave petition have been considered by this Court in a case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] as held consideration end user license, Copy Right Act, and provisions contained in DTAA and the Income Tax Act and has laid down the parameters to test whether the receipt from sale of software would tantamount to royalty or not. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1287
Condonation of delay - delay of filing the appeal before this Tribunal of 968 days - reasonable cause submitted is that company’s accountant received the order through email from the counsel of the assessee company but the said accountant forgot to disclose the impugned order and another person joined as accountant in the assessee company who while scrutinizing the accounts found that the said appeal has not been filed - HELD THAT:- Upon careful consideration, we do not find reasonable cause cogent enough to condone the huge delay of 968 days. The case law of JAKSON LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI [2018 (10) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI] referred by assessee is not applicable on the facts of the case here. In these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal in limine, being time barred.
Appeal is dismissed as time barred.
............
|
9911796707
