Case Law › High Court › Ms Shikshantrix Srijan Pvt. Ltd v. Princ...

Ms Shikshantrix Srijan Pvt. Ltd v. Principal Commissioner, Incometax Delhi

High Court 30 Sep 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Ms Shikshantrix Srijan Pvt. Ltd v. Principal Commissioner, Incometax Delhi
Date of order
30 Sep 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ms Shikshantrix Srijan Pvt. Ltd v. Principal Commissioner, Incometax Delhi, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.

Issue: 3.The question, thus, arises whether the delay of nine minutes wasrequired to be condoned.

Decision: 7.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 8893/2024 and CM APPL. 57177/2024 MS SHIKSHANTRIX SRIJAN PVT. LTD.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Swastik Singh and Mr Atul Singh,Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, INCOMETAX DELHI .....Respondent Through:Mr Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr ShivanshB. Pandya, Mr Viplav Acharya andMr Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMAO R D E R30.09.2024 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated25.06.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) whereby the petitioner’sapplication for condoning the delay in filing the return for the assessmentyear 2023-24 and Form 10-IC was rejected. 2.It is the petitioner’s case that the filing of Form 10-IC was delayed bynine minutes as the petitioner’s attempt to upload the same had failed. 3.The question, thus, arises whether the delay of nine minutes wasrequired to be condoned. The petitioner has produced the screenshotsshowing that the submission had failed at 23:59 on 31.10.2023. 4.In view of the above, it does prima facie appear that the petitioner’sfailure to file Form 10-IC within the due date was not on account of itsfailure to attempt to do so. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly states that theimpugned order may be set aside and the concerned authority - PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) may be directed to re-examine thepetitioner’s application. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to the same and thesaid submission also commends to this Court. Accordingly, the impugnedorder is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned PCIT to considerit afresh. 7.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pendingapplication is also disposed of.application is also disposed of. 8.Order dasti under the signature of Court Master. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2024RKClick here to check corrigendum, if any
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan