← All Phrases

“delay in filing appeal”

AppealsSection 249Section 2491,894 judgments

The decision most relied on for delay in filing appeal is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on delay in filing appeal

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.
153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court
171
citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Judgments citing delay in filing appeal

Suman Gandhi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1759/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1759/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Suman Gandhi…………………………....……………………....Appellant E-24/7, Karunamoyee, Sech Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Axcpg3145R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(2), Kolkata…..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Based On The Information Received From Adit(Inv.), Unit-5, Kolkata, Wherein, It Was Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Income From Investment Of Shares & Loans For Earning Interest, Insurance Commission & Tuition Fees. The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noticed That The Assessee Sold 20,000 & 29,720 Number Of Shares Of Grapco Mining Ltd. & Patheja Forgings Ltd. Respectively Had Been Sold In Physical Form During The Year For Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.2,97,200/-

Section 147Section 250

provisions of law. He stated that law provides that the ld. CIT(A) cannot decide on merit of a case without first condoning delay in filing appeal but in this case, condonation of delay was rejected then merit of the case was addressed. 5. On the other hand

Jain Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 10(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5823/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: CIT(A) and all this

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

considered reasonable cause for filing appeal belatedly which was approximately 6 months. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting requests for condonation of delay in filing appeal, which is in gross violation of principles of Natural justice. 4. On the facts and in law, this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased ... order impugned the CIT(A) has noted that the Assessee has stated ‘illness of the counsel’ as the reason for delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). However, a perusal of Form 35 shows that no such reason was provided by the Assessee. During the appellate proceedings before

Girish Satyanaryan Singh, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 72/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)(a)

delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the assessee has not furnished Affidavit explaining the cause of delay in filing appeal before the learned CIT(A) and resultantly the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeal filed by the assessee. However

Nurunnesha Sardar, Howrah vs. ITO, 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 98/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250

filing this Appeal Petition before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Appellant would like to draw your kind attention to the fact that the delay in filing Appeal Petition has taken place due to the following reasons: 1. The period of dispute is Assessment Year 2017-18, relating to Previous Year

Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 876/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

Power Pvt. Ltd. condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal: “a) That Sri Subh Karan Soni, FCA of 36, Strand Road, 3rd Floor, Room No. 11, Kolkata-700001, was engaged ... condoned and the case of your petitioner be heard on merit.” 1.2 The assessee has also filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, which is as under: “I, Dipak Kumar Sawaria, son of Late Shankar Lal Sanwaria aged, about 59 years, by religion Hindu

Jagannathan Baskar, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2629/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS, CIT
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

under section 246A of the Act. 1.9 In light of above backdrop, I have in ensuring paragraphs detailed our petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal under section 246A of the Act 2 Petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal under section 246A of the Act: We have ... require in this regard. 5. Considering the substantive period of Covid-19 pandemic and reasons given by the assessee we condone the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 6. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside

Sanjay Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 1237/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Krishna Mill Compound Patan. Station Road Unjha, Mehsana Gujarat 384 170 Pan : Alppp 5864 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271Section 68

challenge of the assessee is against dismissal of the appeal of the assessee by the ld.CIT(A) in limine on the ground of delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) by 159 days. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did file an application for condonation ... staying in remote village, viz. Unjha where availability of good accountant and advocate is very difficult. All these reasons are attributed for the delay in filing appeal before the appellate authority. He drew our attention to page no.4 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order where he recorded the reasons given

Burst Healthcare Private Limited, Pune Maharashtra vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1509/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80

There was a delay of 434 days in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Hence, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing appeal. We have perused the statement of fact filed by the assessee and it appears that assessee was pursuing alternate remedy in the form

Banyan Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Range-I, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2563/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2562 & 2563/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Banyan Projects India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 770, 100 Ft Road, Bangalore North, Income Tax, Bangalore 560 038. Corporate Range 1, Chennai. [Pan: Aadcb6525D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

days since the assessee could not file any supporting documentary evidence for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 5. The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) afforded various opportunities to the assessee to substantiate along with

Banyan Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2562/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2562 & 2563/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Banyan Projects India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 770, 100 Ft Road, Bangalore North, Income Tax, Bangalore 560 038. Corporate Range 1, Chennai. [Pan: Aadcb6525D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

days since the assessee could not file any supporting documentary evidence for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 5. The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) afforded various opportunities to the assessee to substantiate along with

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1246/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (CIT) (Th. V.C.)
Section 124Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal, so the same may be treated as sufficient cause delay in filing appeals is serious on the duties and the delay. Since the assessee submitted that the delay of 164 days was on account

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1245/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (CIT) (Th. V.C.)
Section 124Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal, so the same may be treated as sufficient cause delay in filing appeals is serious on the duties and the delay. Since the assessee submitted that the delay of 164 days was on account

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1244/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1243 & 1244/JPR/2024 Shri OP Dargar Foundation P. N D-29, Janpath Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The CIT-Exemption, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGCS7209B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (C.A.) (Th. V.C.), Shri Kamlesh Kumar Meena (CIT) Proxy DR a lqu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal, so the same may be treated as sufficient cause delay in filing appeals is serious on the duties and the delay. Since the assessee submitted that the delay of 164 days was on account

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1243/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024

Bench: ITAT, then assessee-company engage a counsel and prepare appeal & filed the same before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 05.10.2024 (i.e. with a delay of 164 days). 4. Therefore, the non compliance was due to confusion of non- clarity of about the exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal. Therefore, the same can be treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable c

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal, so the same may be treated as sufficient cause delay in filing appeals is serious on the duties and the delay. Since the assessee submitted that the delay of 164 days was on account

Zuari International Limited (Formerlyj Known As Zuari Investment Ltd.), Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3551/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarzuari International Ltd. Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Zuari Circle – 25(1) Investment Ltd.) Delhi Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Community Centre, Kailash Colony, South Delhi – 110 048 Pan : Aaacz 0196 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, C.A. & Shri Aman Goel, C.A. Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 11.11.2021 against the assessment order dated 16.04.2021. Learned CIT(A) dismissed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and appeal vide ex parte order dated 07.06.2024. 7.1 As per order dated 10.01.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Misc

Gac Marine Llc, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2018/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishragac Marine Llc Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(3)(2), 1St Floor, Ahip Palms, International Taxation, Plot No.242 & 243, New Delhi – 110 002 Phase-Iv, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 015 Pan : Aaecg 2882 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Singhal, Adv. & Ms. Mahima Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 90(2)

application and sought condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 15.05.2023 dismissed prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. -3- ITA No.2018/Del/2023 GAC Marine LLC vs. ITO 5. The learned Authorised Representative ... appellant/assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and without affording any opportunity to the appellant. Learned CIT(A) erred in concluding without adjudicating examination of the relevant facts and legal precedents, that the appellant is a tax resident

Allahabad Bank Now Indian Bank, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS Circle), Panchkula

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 292/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 201Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

reasons for not deducting TDS/Short deduction of TDS. 5. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to establish that thus order passed totally delay in filing appeal is intentional and wrong and illegal casual approach of appellant. Thus order passed by CIT(A) ignoring correct facts and reasonable cause is totally ... party. 4.6 On the basis of the circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant was not having "sufficient cause" for delay in filing appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant is held to be invalid and non-maintainable being out of time. For statistical purposes, the appeal

Veena Technologies Private Limited, Delhi vs. It Department Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 867/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita Nos. 866 & 867/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Veena Technologies Pvt. Vs. It Department Ltd. Central Circle – 29 353, A/1, Gali No.9, Delhi Jharkhandi Road, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, New Delhi Pan : Aaccv 7396 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Lovely, Adv. & Shri Ankit, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153C

learned CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay. 5. Learned CIT(A) vide order dated 20.06.2023 allowed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal vide ex parte order. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A), assessee/appellant preferred application for condonation

Veena Technologies Private Limited, Delhi vs. It Department Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 866/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita Nos. 866 & 867/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Veena Technologies Pvt. Vs. It Department Ltd. Central Circle – 29 353, A/1, Gali No.9, Delhi Jharkhandi Road, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, New Delhi Pan : Aaccv 7396 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Lovely, Adv. & Shri Ankit, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153C

learned CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay. 5. Learned CIT(A) vide order dated 20.06.2023 allowed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal vide ex parte order. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A), assessee/appellant preferred application for condonation

Finova Capital Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 263

Grenade Marg, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Rajasthan), hereby affirm and submit this affidavit to request condonation for the delay in filing appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’), Jaipur of Finova Capital Private Limited (the ‘Company’). 1. That I am a Director of the Company