← All Phrases

“extension of limitation”

Assessment ProceduresSection 153Section 153561 judgments

SHABD PRATAP SATSANG,SHABD PRATAP ASHRAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) 2 | P a g e no. 03/2020 and vide para

SUBHASH BABURAO AHER,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NASHIK

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

ITA 240/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.240 & 231 /Pun/2026 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subhash Baburao Aher, Vs. Income Tax Officer Type A-01 Deepraj Row House, Ward 3(1), Nashik Untwadi Cidco, Nashik-422009 Pan: Aavpa6171D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Abhilasha Pawar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

litigants, the period of almost two years have been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). I have also gone through the Form No.35 filed by the assessee before ld.CIT(A). Assessee

SUBHASH BABURAO AHER,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NASHIK

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

ITA 231/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.240 & 231 /Pun/2026 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subhash Baburao Aher, Vs. Income Tax Officer Type A-01 Deepraj Row House, Ward 3(1), Nashik Untwadi Cidco, Nashik-422009 Pan: Aavpa6171D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Abhilasha Pawar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

litigants, the period of almost two years have been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). I have also gone through the Form No.35 filed by the assessee before ld.CIT(A). Assessee

SEVABHAVI BRAMNAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT RAVTALE CHIPLU,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

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

ITA 2784/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2784/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ward-1, Ratnagiri Ravtale Chiplu, Burumtali Chiplun, Ratnagiri – 415605, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra Pan : Aadas7630J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 69A

litigants, the period of almost two years have been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). 4 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu 6. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee that

ANSARI PAKKIDAKALA ,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 146/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 264Section 44ASection 69A

However, the relevant period was hit by the\nCovid-19 pandemic followed by strict lockdown. The Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re reported in 134\ntaxmann.com 307 (SC) has held that period starting from 15th March\n2020 to 28th February 2022 shall have

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1369/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 250

litigants, the period of\nalmost two years have been excluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court\nin the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022)\n441 ITR 722 (SC). The minor delay if any after exclusion of covid-\n19 pandemic outbreak period would be hardly a month

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 250

litigants, the period of almost two years have been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). The minor delay if any after exclusion of covid- 19 pandemic outbreak period would be hardly a month

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

this period is squarely covered by the 36 Getinge Medical India Private Limited orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, whereby all statutory timelines stood extended up to 30.06.2021 owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, both the filing of the return of income

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

rejected. The Court held, with respect to applicability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under

ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 586/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order

JASWANT N. SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTL. TAXN. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1372/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble&

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69

date for compliance under the Act, in 29.05.2022 accordance with the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto cognizance for extension of limitation period reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC)/[2022]/441 ITR 722(SC)/[2022] for limitation arising during the period of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 Date

JASWANT N. SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,INTL.TAXN., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1371/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble&

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69

date for compliance under the Act, in 29.05.2022 accordance with the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto cognizance for extension of limitation period reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC)/[2022]/441 ITR 722(SC)/[2022] for limitation arising during the period of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 Date

JASWANT N. SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTL. TAXN., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 114/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble&

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69

date for compliance under the Act, in 29.05.2022 accordance with the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto cognizance for extension of limitation period reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC)/[2022]/441 ITR 722(SC)/[2022] for limitation arising during the period of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 Date

SUDHA DOSHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO - WARD 5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1775/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. VenkateshwarluFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250(6)

rejected. The Court held, with\nrespect to applicability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section\n149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing notice\nunder Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only\napplicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed\nunder

ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 732/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

rejected. The Court held, with respect to applicability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under

SRINIVASA REDDY YETURU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1898/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Srinivasa Reddy Yeturu, Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aalpy0486H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Ashuthosh Pradhan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Which Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 11, Hyderabad, Dated 01/10/2025, For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashuthosh Pradhan, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 69ASection 80DSection 80E

more than 180 days. If we carefully read clause (xii) of Exp.(1) to section 153 of the Act, it is not an extension of limitation provided for completion of assessment, but it is only exclusion of time taken by the A.O of the searched person which was lost

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1895/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Dated 09/10/2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 250

more than 180 days. If we carefully read clause (xii) of Exp.(1) to section 153 of the Act, it is not an extension of limitation provided for completion of assessment, but it is only exclusion of time taken by the A.O of the searched person which was lost

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1893/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1893/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle (1)2 Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Dated 16/10/2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153

more than 180 days. If we carefully read clause (xii) of Exp.(1) to section 153 of the Act, it is not an extension of limitation provided for completion of assessment, but it is only exclusion of time taken by the A.O of the searched person which was lost

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 1885/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1885/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Dated 31/10/2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153

more than 180 days. If we carefully read clause (xii) of Exp.(1) to section 153 of the Act, it is not an extension of limitation provided for completion of assessment, but it is only exclusion of time taken by the A.O of the searched person which was lost

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

covered during the Covid pandemic period and\ntherefore, after giving the benefit of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,\n441 ITR 722 (SC) the delay in filing the audit report in Form-\n10B was only 111 days. Thus, the learned Authorised\nRepresentative ... covered by the Covid-2019 pandemic and the\nlimitation was extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nsuo motu Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra).\nThus, the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act was denied by\nthe CPC as well as by the learned

Showing 1–20 of 561 · Page 1 of 29

...