“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

New Leaf Homes Pvt Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 18(3), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2295/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 282

office report, there is delay of 243 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved application for condonation of delay on the ground that notices of hearing issued by the learned CIT(Appeals) were transmitted to unrelated e-mail and were not served on the assessee

First Choice Propbuild Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 1367/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 153CSection 153D

record, we noticed that present appeal is filed after the prescribed time limit for this purpose, for which appellant filed application for condonation of delay of 156 days, looking the nature of case, mentioned reasons in application and in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to condone

Govindaraj Saravanan Manikandan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2020/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2020/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Govindaraj Saravanan Manikandan, Income Tax Officer, Kasi Flats 5Th C Block, 8Th Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -8(1), Annai Sathya Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai. Chennai -600 089. [Pan: Dacpm-7270-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.07.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Main Ground Involved In This Appeal Is As Regards To The Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Solely On The Grounds Of A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before Nfac.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

delay in filing of appeal held that there is no reasonable cause for filing appeal with 55 days delay and hence, declined the condonation of delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal ... supported by any documentary evidence but going through the smallness of delay of 55 days and the reason stated, we are inclined to condone the delay before the CIT(A)-NFAC. In term of the above, the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC is set aside and matter remanded back

Educo, Mumbai vs. Exemption Ward (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2857/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Educo Nfac Exem. Ward 1(2), 25A, Belvedere Court, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug, Sane Guruji Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaate 3280 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. SrinivasanFor Respondent: 01/08/2024

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(24)Section 80G

Lakh was duly submitted to the Ld. amount of INR 35 Lakh was duly submitted to the Ld. CIT along with request for condonation of delay which is CIT along with request for condonation of delay which is CIT along with request for condonation of delay which is still pending ... Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a copy of the assessee has filed a copy of the said order condoning the delay in order condoning the delay in filing the Form No. 10 by the assessee. We are of the opinion that filing the Form

First Global Stockbroking Pvt Ltd, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1) (1), Aayekar Bhavan Mumbai

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

ITA 1787/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit 4(1)(1), Ratnam Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 38/39, Sector 19A, Vs. Mumbai-400001. Maharashtra-400703. Pan No. Aaacf 0661 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModyFor Respondent: 08/07/2024

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 40

assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay of 1136 days in the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay of 1136 days in the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone ... appeal was immediately filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 10.12.2018 with the request to condone 018 with the request to condone the delay of 1136 days. the delay of 1136 days. 3. On the other hand, the On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) Ld. Departmental Representative

Shri. Basaveswar Credit Co-Op Society Limited, Hundund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 673/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 8o

against the NIL Income returned for the assessment year 2015- 16 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Condonation of delay: (i.) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in failing to appreciate the reasons for delay in preferring an appeal against the intimation or the rectification ... ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the matter on the merits of the matter, on the facts and circumstances of the case. (ii.) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the appeal, was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant

Ashoka Garden Enclave Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3230/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Iyer, CAFor Respondent: Shri AnoopHiwase,Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(b)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

before theLd.CIT(A) during appeal proceeding. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to file an affidavit before theld. CIT(A) with an application for condonation of delay explaining the day wise delay to file the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Further, the entire matter is remanded back to the file

Refreshment Product Service India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1787/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Refreshment Product Vs. Acit Service India Private Circle – 19 (1) Limited, B-91, Mayapuri New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan No.Aagcr4112D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Sh. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Advocate Sh. Aditya Rathore, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234B

find the cause for delay. The Appellate authority has to examine whether the sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. Even though substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities but that does not mean that ... above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the appellant and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 7.2 Since the appeal is being dismissed

Luv Procon Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 315/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 315/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Luv Procon Private Ito Limited Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Times Square Arcade, Opp. Rambaug, Nr. Ravija Plaza, Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccl1740P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 31.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Was A Delay Of 53 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay. It Was Submitted That The Appeal Order Passed By Nfac Was Sent On The Email Id Luvprocon12@Gmail.Com, Which Was Not Accessed & Checked For A Long Time For The Reason That The Office Was

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 147

further submitted that the order was not uploaded on the Portal. The Ld. Sr. DR also has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay. Considering the reason as explained by the assessee, the delay is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the return ... submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and also to decide the matter on the merits of the case. 7. The Ld. Sr. DR did not express

Mayur Nirmalkumar Jain, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 676/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

outset, we observe that the appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 163 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay vide Affidavit dated 15.04.2019 wherein the assessee stated that the appeal in filing was delayed owing to the fact that the assessee was suffering heavy

Shri Jasvindarsingh Grurubaxsingh Jolly, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Vivek JaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143Section 147Section 250

there is a delay of 601 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed application dated nil, with a prayer for condoning of delay in filing the appeal. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are reproduced below:– Shri Jasvindarsingh Gurubaxsingh Jolly ITA no.12/Nag./2022 “Delay ... reasons which prevented him from acting in time. Most of time he was ill. Prayer Appellant very humbly prays to your honour to condone the delay in filing of appeal of approx 596 days & 6 days in interest of justice and if approved by your honour.” 3. The learned Authorised

Narra Ganga Devi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 243/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 243/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Narra Ganga Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer,] Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Anwpn8051F Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 148

days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: “……. ……. Aggrieved with the order of assessment, she filed ... benefit by resorting to delay in filing the appeal. In view of the above, the appellant prays the Hon’ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay, admit the appeal and pass appropriate orders granting relief as prayed for.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect

The Farmers Service Co-Operative Limited, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 166/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.166/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Farmers Service Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1, Srikakulam. Srikakulam. Pan: Aabtt4377L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: “1……. 2…….. 3. The in the computation sheet accompanying ... find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 122 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated

Sivanandaguru Educational and Cultural Trust, Jaggayyapet Mandal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 165/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 165/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sivanandaguru Educational & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cultural Trust, Exemption Ward, D.No. 43-2, Balusupadu Village, Rajahmundry. Jaggayyapet Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh – 52115. Pan: Aadts4140A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

Supreme Court due to COVID. 3. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay vide letter dated 15/11/2022 wherein the assessee has elaborately explained the reasons that prevented the assessee to file the appeal with a delay of 113 days before ... NFAC and sought for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC observed that the intimation U/s. 3 143(1) of the Act was passed on 30/12/2020 whereas the appeal was filed on 19/09/2022 which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing the appeal. Therefore

Aathur Karthick, Coimbatore vs. The ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Coimbatore

ITA 376/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Smt. M.S. Deeptha, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

actually filed on 13.02.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 308 days. The assessee filed condonation petition along with affidavit for condoning the delay of 309 days stating the following reason:- “2. It is submitted that the appellant was made aware of this conundrum only when a reminder show ... tract the same immediately at the time of passing the said order..” 2.1 When this was confronted to ld. Senior DR, she opposed condonation of delay. 2.2 After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the case, we are of the view that delay can be condoned with

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Fiance Comppany Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 515/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

assessee actually filed this appeal on 21.10.2020, thereby there was a delay of 185 days. The assessee has filed condonation application for condonation of delay stating that the period is falling under the pandemic period of Covid-19 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 ... vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay during

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Fiance Comppany Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 514/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

Cholamandalam Investment &Finance Company Limited, Parrys, Chennai vs. ACIT- Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 384/CHNY/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 847/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

Maverick Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1251/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: None

Section 51

vakalat of the representative of the assessee is on record dated 08/07/2024. The assessee has also filed an affidavit dated 28/06/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that there was a delay of 320 days in filing ... contrary intention was brought on record by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is sufficient cause and reasonable cause to condone the delay of 320 days as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported