How many judgments cite Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)?

79 judgments on BharatTax cite Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) (277 ITR 1), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 153D, Section 154, Section 253(5), Section 271(1)(c).

Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)

277 ITR 1Reported decision#1433 most cited

What is Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can condone significant delays in filing an appeal, such as 180 days, if the appeal was filed after a Supreme Court judgment clarified the legal position, demonstrating a reasonable cause for the delay.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. · 277 ITR 1 · condonation of delay · appeal filing delay · reasonable cause · Section 253(5) · Limitation Act 1963 · waiting for Supreme Court judgment · sufficient cause for delay · ITAT appeal

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 153D Section 154 Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 1963 Section 80IB

Issues it is cited on

section 51 section 80ib section 253(5)section 271aab section 139(4)delay in filing appeal reasonable cause non-speaking order condonation of delay section 249 section 153d section 274

Judgments citing Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 154

…h Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 2.6. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Ra…

PRATIK MAYUR DOSHI,PALGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JURISDICTION WARD 1, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7516/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 7516/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 PRATIK MAYUR DOSHI, Vs. Income tax Officer, PALGHAR Jurisdiction Ward 1, Palghar Shop No. 2, Gokuldham Mahim Road, Palghar Mumbai - 401404 [PAN: ALQPD0539C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Sathe, AR Revenue by Shri Limbasiya Kavan Nareshkumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 26/02/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “th…

SHILA ASHOK SHAH FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIOM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6764/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6764/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2025-26 Shila Ashok Shah Foundation Vs. CIT (Exemptions) 302/C Kailash Tower RN Narkar Marg Ghatkopar East Mumbai - 400075 [PAN: AABTS6164Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Suresh M. Pooj (virtually appeared) Revenue by Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR Date of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 29/11/2024 passed by Ld.…

SANTOSH KUMAR RAMLAXMAN YADAV,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5123/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 144Section 148Section 151ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 5123/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Yadav 42(3)(3), Mumbai 203, Building No. 2 Ziprya Arcade Khumbarkhanpada Dobmivilli West Maharashtra - 421202 [PAN: ADRPY4190R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajesh S. Athvale, C.A. Revenue by Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present penalty appeal filed by assessee arises ou…

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6557 & 6558/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 JM Financial Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer 141, Maker Chambers III (Exem.), Ward -1(4), Nariman Point Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAATJ2474M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K Shivram, A/R Revenue by Ms. Kavitha Kashik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER Per Bench: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 15/08/2025 and 16/08…

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6557/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6557/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 JM Financial Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer 141, Maker Chambers III (Exem.), Ward -1(4), Nariman Point Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAATJ2474M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K Shivram, A/R Revenue by Ms. Kavitha Kashik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER Per Bench: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 15/08/2025 and 16/08/2025 passed by N…

SWAPNGANDHA SANJAY PARAB ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4614/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 4614/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Swapngandha Sanjay Parab Vs. Ward – 42(3)(4), Mumbai 9/657 Audumbad, Abhudaya Nagar Kalachowki, Cottongreen Mumbai - 400023 [PAN: AMSPP6908L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R Date of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 30/03/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [here…

SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA,THANE vs. WARD 3(2) THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5824/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 269Section 271DSection 27I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 5824/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA Vs. Ward 3(2), Thane Dhanishtha Taragan Near Cadbury Co. Thane - 400606 [PAN: AIOPS1883K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT D/R Date of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present penalty appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 03/11/2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for as…

MUSIC BROADCAST LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2212/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 154

…Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 4.4 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4.5 It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudh…

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 771/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 2.6 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2.7 It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. 8 ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017…

INDIA LAND AND PROPERTIES LIMITED (SINCE MERGED WITH EQUINOX INDIA DEVELOPMENTS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA BULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 226

…Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 6.2 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of 9 ITA No.426/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 India Land and Properties Limited the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon’ble S…

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

ITA 44/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 249(2)Section 271FSection 69

…Madras High Court in the case of\nVenkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001)\n118 Taxman 622 (Mad).\n3.7 We also refer to the decision of Coordinate Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)\nreported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the\nappeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the\nRevenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the\napplication of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt.\nSu…

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 6625/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…Madras High\nCourt in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168\nCTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad).\n3.5 I also refer to the decision of Coordinate Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)\nreported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the\nappeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the\nRevenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the\napplication of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs.\nSmt. Su…

PREVISION PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(2)(4), MUMUBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 5799/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 69ASection 69C

…ras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT\n(2001) 168 CCTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad).\n3.5 I also refer to the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this\nTribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT)\nreported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the\nappeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court.\n3.6 It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any\ncounter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for\ncondonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.\nSandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt…

MINAKSHI SINGH,MEERUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6648/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6648/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12

…Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 4.6 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Ra…

COREGEO TECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1626/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 9. Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Ra…

UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1535/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 801

…taken by Page 8 of 9 Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 10. The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Ra…

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1279/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…e case. A similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 622/248 ITR 681 (Madras). 12. Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 92 ITD 411/277 ITR 1(A.T.), condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Su…

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1270/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

…imilar view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 10. Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Ra…

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1269/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Showing 1–20 of 79 · Page 1 of 4