condonation of delay — 12,312 case laws

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Raichur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 350/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing

expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied by the Ld.AR hereinabove. In our view, the issue relating to Page 4 condonation of delay must be considered on a rationale, common sense and pragmatic manner. There cannot be any presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account ... beneficial situation by resorting to the delay. Instead of looking into whether the reasons stated by the assessee in support of condonation of delay, are sufficient, what must be considered is whether the assessee was diligent enough to take necessary and appropriate steps to show that the delay was caused

Synergy Health Sciences Private Limited, Thane vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sushant SantFor Respondent: ShriDinesh A Chourasia – SR AR

Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Ld.AR invited our attention in CBDT circular bearing No.19/2023 F.No.173/32/2022 – ITA-1 dated 23/10/2023 where the CBDT allowed the condonation of delay in availing the tax under section 115BAA. The Ld.AR placed that the appeal order was passed on 30/10/2023 but the Ld.CIT(A), without considering the CBDT circular ... dated 23/10/2023 has passed the order and rejected the condonation of delay for filing the form, as per direction of the CBDT. 4. The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. The Ld.DR invited our attention in appeal order para 4.4 which is reproduced

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed in accordance with the above direction

ITA 4514/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Modi &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Negapal, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153A

Nos.4510 to 4512 & 4514/Mum/2023 Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 & 2019-20 MANU/SC/1098/2023 that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length ... founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. The expression sufficient cause is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed in accordance with the above direction

ITA 4512/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Modi &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Negapal, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153A

Nos.4510 to 4512 & 4514/Mum/2023 Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 & 2019-20 MANU/SC/1098/2023 that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length ... founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. The expression sufficient cause is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumabi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed in accordance with the above direction

ITA 4511/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Modi &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Negapal, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153A

Nos.4510 to 4512 & 4514/Mum/2023 Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 & 2019-20 MANU/SC/1098/2023 that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length ... founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. The expression sufficient cause is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed in accordance with the above direction

ITA 4510/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Modi &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Negapal, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153A

Nos.4510 to 4512 & 4514/Mum/2023 Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 & 2019-20 MANU/SC/1098/2023 that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length ... founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. The expression sufficient cause is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice

Dharmendra Harishchandra Mehta, Malad East vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(3), Matru Mandir, Tardeo Mumbai

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

ITA 4397/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

while giving his finding, the appeal has been dismissed as non-admissible, owing to late filing of appeal and non-filing of condonation of delay application. 9. Considering the submissions made before us, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back

Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3)(1), Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 3978/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula 203, Vikas Darshan, Income Tax Officer, Shankar Puppala Road, Ward 20(3)(1) 12Th Lane Nagpada, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alepk1983F

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

found that appeal filed by the assessee is late by 49 days. For 05. this delay assessee submitted a request for condonation of delay. The reasons of delay in filing of the appeal was that assessee has studied only up to 10th Class and could not look at ITBA portal ... appeared before the learned CIT (A) despite several notices and further, the appeal is also filed late, there is no sufficient cause in condoning the delay of 49 days. 07. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that the appeal before the learned CIT (A) was decided

Bloom Seal Containers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre It Dept, Bangalore

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

ITA 2591/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhribloom Seal Containers Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Pvt. Ltd. It Department, 4Th Floor, Ready Money Bengluru Terrace, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Naka, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234Section 234CSection 250Section 40A(7)Section 43B

that the same is an after thought and the assessee has not got any order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing revised statement in form 3CA/3CD. iii. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the main addition is on account of gratuity

Kiran Wati, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

ITA 362/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

disposed of by this common order. 3. All these appeals are barred by limitation for a period of 129 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee in the respective appeals. In this connection the Ld. AR submitted before us that upon completion ... said site. Under these circumstances, the assessee was not been able to file the appeals in time and, therefore, prays for condonation of delay before us. 4. The explanation so rendered by the assessee seems to be genuine. Relevant to mention that the Ld. DR has also not raised serious

Kavita Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

ITA 352/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

disposed of by this common order. 3. All these appeals are barred by limitation for a period of 129 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee in the respective appeals. In this connection the Ld. AR submitted before us that upon completion ... said site. Under these circumstances, the assessee was not been able to file the appeals in time and, therefore, prays for condonation of delay before us. 4. The explanation so rendered by the assessee seems to be genuine. Relevant to mention that the Ld. DR has also not raised serious

Kavita Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

ITA 351/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

disposed of by this common order. 3. All these appeals are barred by limitation for a period of 129 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee in the respective appeals. In this connection the Ld. AR submitted before us that upon completion ... said site. Under these circumstances, the assessee was not been able to file the appeals in time and, therefore, prays for condonation of delay before us. 4. The explanation so rendered by the assessee seems to be genuine. Relevant to mention that the Ld. DR has also not raised serious

Kavita Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

ITA 350/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

disposed of by this common order. 3. All these appeals are barred by limitation for a period of 129 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee in the respective appeals. In this connection the Ld. AR submitted before us that upon completion ... said site. Under these circumstances, the assessee was not been able to file the appeals in time and, therefore, prays for condonation of delay before us. 4. The explanation so rendered by the assessee seems to be genuine. Relevant to mention that the Ld. DR has also not raised serious

Pritesh Lalitbhai Pandya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 674/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17 Pritesh Lalitbhai Pandya Income Tax Officer, Vs B/15, Krushnvila Bungalows, Ward-3(2)(9), Nr. Radhanagar Society, Isanpur Road, Ahmedabad Jamalpur Road, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad-382450 Pan : Bxwpp 8078 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

submitted that there is a delay of 315 days in filing the present appeal, for which a detailed affidavit along with condonation of delay is filed. 5.1 As regards the assessee’s appeal, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee in the FY 2015-16 jointly acquired agricultural land with

Hindustani Education Society, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Nanded

ITA 416/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Sharad Shah [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

outset of physical hearing the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of assessee drawn our attention to affidavit & petition filed for condonation of delay in instituting the present appeal and reiterating contents thereof prayed for condonation. Further without touching the grounds of appeal and merits of the case

Ananda Sarkar, Nadia vs. ACIT, Cir. 41, Nadia

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

ITA 448/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.448/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ananda Sarkar…………..……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant Gobindapur Bazar, Babla Gobindapur, Santipur, Nadia, W.B - 741404. [Pan:Aufps5924C] Vs. Acit, Circle-41, Nadia...…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.08.2023 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. There Is A Delay Of 128 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit Of Shir Ananda Sarkar, The Assessee Herein. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 69A

hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. There is a delay of 128 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, which is duly supported by an affidavit of Shir Ananda Sarkar, the assessee herein. Considering the submissions made in the affidavit

Jesudason Biji, Chennai vs. Office of Income Tax Officer Int. Taxn Ward1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 54ESection 54F

invalid as per sec.139(5) and was not acted upon. Pursuant to that the assessee preferred a petition before the CBDT for condonation of delay in filing the original return u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act and during the process of examining, the correctness of the claim to facilitate

ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Standard Chargered Global Business Servies Pvt. Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 124/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 964/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Standard Chartered Global The Deputy Commissioner Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.1, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 124/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Assistant Standard Chartered Global Commissioner Of Income Vs. Business Services Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle 3(1), No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

Form 36. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 01.02.2023 with a delay of 78 days. The Revenue has filed affidavit for condonation of delay of 68 days wherein it was stated that the delay has occurred due to change in incumbency on account of leave. It was also ... stated that the delay was unintentional and was beyond the control of AO. In view of the above reason, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 11. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A)-NFAC allowing lease rental payments

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 964/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 964/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Standard Chartered Global The Deputy Commissioner Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.1, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 124/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Assistant Standard Chartered Global Commissioner Of Income Vs. Business Services Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle 3(1), No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

Form 36. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 01.02.2023 with a delay of 78 days. The Revenue has filed affidavit for condonation of delay of 68 days wherein it was stated that the delay has occurred due to change in incumbency on account of leave. It was also ... stated that the delay was unintentional and was beyond the control of AO. In view of the above reason, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 11. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A)-NFAC allowing lease rental payments

Smt. Sethi Seema, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 931/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri. Mahesh Kumar L, A.RFor Respondent: Sri. Ganesh R. Ghale, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

that there is a delay of about 30 days in filing the instant appeal on which the assessee by filing an application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit of the assessee has submitted that in the instant case the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 in fact was received

“condonation of delay”

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

Judgments citing condonation of delay

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Raichur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

Synergy Health Sciences Private Limited, Thane vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumabi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

Dharmendra Harishchandra Mehta, Malad East vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(3), Matru Mandir, Tardeo Mumbai

Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3)(1), Mumbai, Maharastra

Bloom Seal Containers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre It Dept, Bangalore

Kiran Wati, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Kavita Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Kavita Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Kavita Chaudhary, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Pritesh Lalitbhai Pandya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

Hindustani Education Society, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Nanded

Ananda Sarkar, Nadia vs. ACIT, Cir. 41, Nadia

Jesudason Biji, Chennai vs. Office of Income Tax Officer Int. Taxn Ward1(1), Chennai

ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Standard Chargered Global Business Servies Pvt. Limited, Chennai

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

Smt. Sethi Seema, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore