← All Phrases

“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

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

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

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.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

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.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

El-Dorado Social Foundation, Aurangabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1161/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1161/Pun/2025 El – Dorado Social Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Foundation, Shop No.A-405, Sr. No.55, Space Olympia, Sutgirni Chowk, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Aagce7413A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The It Act. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are, That The Assessee Filed Its Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Act On 30.09.2024. With A View To Verify The Genuineness Of Activities Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

before 30.09.2024. The mistake appears to be bonafied. 6 However, when the mistake came in the knowledge of the assessee, an application for condonation of delay was filed before CBDT, which is still pending for consideration. We also observe that CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 has already provided extended

Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 293/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.293/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Palabhatla, Hyderabad Ward – 7 (1) Pan:Aiupp8507H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 04.05.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 571 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition & Affidavit Along With Copies Of Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR

condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee. It was also contended that the assessee is having business income, and therefore ... appeal in time. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee had also remained non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore condonation of delay should not be granted. Page 2 of 6 ITA No 293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla 4. We have considered the submissions of both

Mohammed Yousuf, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1036/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1036/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Mohammed Yousuf Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8 (1) Pan:Athpm1283H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mohammed Yousuf, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 11.02.2025 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 49 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With A Sworn Affidavit

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 147

delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, and occurred solely due to the official nature of assignments. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation and submitted that ... also not substantial and denying condonation would result in denial of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay. Page 2 of 6 ITA No 1036 of 2025 Mohammed Yousuf Accordingly, the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned

Khader Hussain Shaik, Kadapa vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kadapa

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

ITA 1035/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1036/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Mohammed Yousuf Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8 (1) Pan:Athpm1283H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mohammed Yousuf, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 11.02.2025 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 49 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With A Sworn Affidavit

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 147

delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, and occurred solely due to the official nature of assignments. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation and submitted that ... also not substantial and denying condonation would result in denial of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay. Page 2 of 6 ITA No 1036 of 2025 Mohammed Yousuf Accordingly, the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned

The Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Hanamkonda vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 364/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) The Warangal District Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Cooperative Central Bank Income Tax, Limited, Hanamkonda, Circle-3(1), Warangal. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtt3137G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 11/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

seeking condonation of the delay in filing Form 10IF. The CBDT, after considering the facts, vide its order dated 01.09.2025, condoned the delay in filing Form 10IF and authorized the income-tax authorities to admit the said Form 10IF within the stipulated time. However, the CBDT clarified that the condonation ... examine the same on merits. It was further clarified that no interest shall be payable in case of refund arising due to the condonation of delay in filing Form 10IF, and that no relief of interest paid or payable under sections 234A, 234B or 234C of the Act shall

Kavita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kavita Agarwal…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 81, Arihand Garden, Southern Avenue Flat No.3A, 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700029.. [Pan: Adbpa8919N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(2), Kolkata……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saswati Mitra Dutta & Rajeshree Dutta, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 818 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 250Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

Parathasaarathy Gajendran, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2196/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parthasarathy Gajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Long Bazaar, Near Market, Ward 1, Vellore 632 004. Vellore. [Pan:Aaepp4858R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 310 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 69A

year 2016-17. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 310 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in 2 I.T.A. No.2196/Chny/25 the interest of justice ... condone the delay of 310 days by imposing cost of ₹.5,000/- payable in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 7 grounds

M/S. Mahindra Orchards Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1793/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153A

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which

M/S. Tatva Clean Energies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1772/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153A

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which

M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1771/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153A

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which

M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1770/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153A

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which

M/S. Ojas Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1769/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153A

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which