1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court grants condonation of delay under Income-tax Act, emphasizing promptness and diligence in legal proceedings.</h1> The court allowed the application for condonation of delay under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that litigants should not suffer ... Application For Reference, Limitation Issues: Condonation of delay in making a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay in making a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that although the reference application was prepared within the stipulated time frame, it could not be signed and filed on time due to the Commissioner's absence for official business and subsequent holidays. The delay was noted on January 12, 1987, and a petition for condonation of delay was affirmed on March 3, 1987. The court directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit to explain the delay further. The supplementary affidavit detailed the timeline of events from January 20, 1987, to March 4, 1987, involving the Ministry of Law and counsel. The court criticized the handling of the proceedings by the Ministry of Law and lawyers but noted no fault on the part of the Commissioner. The judgment emphasized that a litigant should not suffer due to the negligence of their lawyers. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, and costs were imposed on the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the need for promptness and diligence by the Ministry of Law and lawyers in future proceedings.Judge SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN delivered the primary judgment, allowing the application for condonation of delay based on the lack of fault on the part of the Commissioner. Judge DIPAK KUMAR SEN concurred with the decision. The judgment underscored the importance of ensuring that litigants do not bear the consequences of their lawyers' delays or negligence. The court's ruling was based on the principle that individuals should not be penalized for the shortcomings of their legal representatives.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
