← 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

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

outset, we observe that the cross objection filed by the assessee is with a delay of 58 days. Ld.AR prayed for condonation of delay in the interest of justice. Ld. DR objected for condonation of delay. 21. Considered the submissions of both parties, it is fact on record that assessee ... however during this period, the Covid Pandemic was at peak, there is reasonable cause for such delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the CO. 22. Coming to the main appeal filed by the revenue, at the time of hearing, Ld.DR brought to our notice

Vivek Residency, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward-II (4), Range-II, Madurai

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

ITA 199/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 199/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

erred in disposing the appeal in haste in a summary manner without waiting for the order of the CBDT on the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance ... assessee carried the matter in appeal before first appellant authority, and argued that it has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing return of income before CBDT, and said application is pending for disposal. Therefore, the appeal may be kept in abeyance till the CBDT decides the issue

Venugopal Gajendran, Chennai vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 10(2), Chennai

The appeal is disposed off as under

ITA 16/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, (Addl. CIT)- Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

that the assessee faced adverse medical conditions which resulted into late filing of appeal. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, opposed condonation of delay and drew attention to the fact that the appeal before ld. CIT(A) was also filed with a delay of 150 days ... before first appellate authority was filed with a considerable delay of 150 days. However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be deposited by the assessee to 3 Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority

M/S Global Infoserve Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate War-2(2), Chennnai

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

ITA 936/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.936/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Global Infoserve Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2B, Corporate Ward-2(2), Sai Subhodaya, Chennai. Thiruvanmayur, Chennai.

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

find that there is a delay of 375 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to Affidavit filed ... natural justice, the delay may be condoned. 3.1 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, opposing the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay submitted that the reasons given by the assessee does not come under reasonable and bona fide cause as provided under the Act, for condonation

K.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1501/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Smt. T.V.Muthu Abirami (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264Section 54

finally filed on 03.05.2018. Under these circumstances, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was 3 pursuing alternative remedy. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay on the ground that it was only after the rejection of application u/s 264, the assessee though it fit to prefer further appeal. Having

Gnana Shale Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-6, Bengaluru

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

ITA 887/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Susan D George, CIT –DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 63

great hardship and irreparable injury whereas no hardship or injury would be caused to the Revenue, if this application of condonation of delay is allowed. In this context, the learned AR had relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST.Katiji and Others ... heard. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay for belated filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, we are of the view there is sufficient cause and no latches can be attributed

M/S N. G. Group, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(2)(, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 503/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

therefore, the impugned appeal is delayed by 1,057 days. 05. Assessee has filed the petition dated 17th March 2022 for condonation of delay. The petition is as under: - N.G. Group; A.Y. 09–10 “The Appellant-firm is engaged in the business of building and construction activities ... annexed as "Exhibit B". Thus, the actual delay in filing the appeal is 485 days. 6. That your honours are kindly requested to condone the delay since there was "sufficient cause" for the same. The true determination of the issue on hand will only advance the cause of justice

Shri Namdeo Motiram Mangaonkar Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2363/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 143(1)Section 154

relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below for ready reference: "The worthy Pr. CIT (Exemptions) had through his order dated 30.06.2021 condoned the delay. On the basis of this order, a rectification order dated 27.07.2021 was passed by the jurisdictional assessing officer and the demand raised ... deduction which is legitimately and legally available. The Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued circular No. 7/2018 dated 20/12/2018 for A.Y.2016-17 for condonation of delay U/s 119(2) of the Income tax act, 1961 in filing of the form no. 10 and form 3 ITA 2363/Mum/2022

M/S. Bhairav Tube (India ), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 646/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S, Bhairav Tube (India) Ito Wd19(1)(2) Shop No. 10,Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Khotwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 004 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aawft1198E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ujjwal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjwal Chavan SR AR
Section 114Section 143Section 147Section 148

raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. Delay in filling of this appeal may be condone as per an application with prayer to condone the delay, and an Affidavit executed by partner of the firm in support of an application with prayer to condone the delay considering the facts and circumstances ... dated 6/8/2019, the assessee says that same was communicated to on 5/3/2022 and subsequently on 11/4/2022 the appeal was filed. For the condonation of delay, assessee submitted that there was change in the address of the reason that the form was having address which went into the development

Mr. Mangesh Tukaram Sawant, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 25(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.302/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Mangesh Acit- 25(2) Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan,Bkc, Tukaram Sawant Bandra(E),Mumbai A/004,Prathamesh बिधम/ Maharashtra, 400051 Horizon, New Mhb Vs. Colony, Linking Road, Borivali(W), Mumbai 400091 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagps0518M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 144

proceedings. Thus, he submitted that delay should not be condo med. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances and the reasons given for condonation of delay, it is seen that, the accountant of the Assessee Mr. Dakshesh Goyal was looking after the matters of the Assessee who had left ... before the CIT (Appeals) nor even filed the second appeal before the Tribunal in time. However, looking to the reasons given for condonation of delay, there appears to be sufficient cause not representing the matter as he was dependent upon his accountant who had neither informed the Assessee properly

M/S Nickunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 15/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 15/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Cen. Cir,- 2(4), M/S Nikunj Eximp R. No. 802, Pratistha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Sri Joravar Bhavan, Bhavan, Old Cgo Vs. 93, M. K. Road, Marine Lines, Annexe, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcn0991K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.10.2020, Passed Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A For Ay 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3(1)Section 68

Your Honours may deem fit. 2. At the outset, the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 9 days and the petition for condonation of delay; assessee has submitted that it has to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of order for expiry on 28.12.2020. However

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga vs. M/S. Manasa Medicals, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 148ASection 68

addition made u/ s. 68 is justified." 3. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit, the revenue has stated that consequent to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of UOI v. Ashish Agarwal, Civil ... days and therefore it was prayed that the delay may be condoned. 4. We have heard the rival submissions on the condonation of delay in fling the appeal. Following the Supreme Court decision of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others

M/S Perfect Stone Limited, Chennai vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 785/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.785/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Perfect Stone Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 7, Lvr Centre, Seshadri Income Tax, National Faceless Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 006. Assessment Centre, New Delhi. [Pan:Aaacp1931G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 30.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Was Passed Under Section 143(43) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] On 23.12.2018. Since The Audit

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, Advocate for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(43)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

submitted that there was delay of 51 days in filing the tax audit report and the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, which was rejected and prayed for condoning the delay and delete the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act. 4. On the other hand ... filing report was not at all intentional and happened due to all the above reasons. We humbly request the Assessing Officer to kindly condone the delay in filing the audit report and request you to not to levy penalty. We are herewith enclosing copy of resignation letter of said employee

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 569/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.568 & 569/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam,, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 250

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 687 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit, wherein, it was stated as under: 2 I.T.A. Nos. 568 & 569/Chny/21 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income ... parties." 6. Considering the above, the Deponent most respectfully and humbly prays before this Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly admit the appeal and condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7. It is further affirmed that the above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 568/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.568 & 569/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam,, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 250

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 687 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit, wherein, it was stated as under: 2 I.T.A. Nos. 568 & 569/Chny/21 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income ... parties." 6. Considering the above, the Deponent most respectfully and humbly prays before this Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly admit the appeal and condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7. It is further affirmed that the above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

Kugel Developers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(4), Chennai

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

ITA 348/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2085/Chny/2014 and ITA No. 2513/Chny/2017 are time barred by 54 days and 45 days, respectively, for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the in ITA No. 2085/Chny/2014, the assessee could not file ... therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee’s submitted that the reasons given by the assessee’s does not come within the ambit of reasonable

ITO Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai vs. Genda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2033/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2085/Chny/2014 and ITA No. 2513/Chny/2017 are time barred by 54 days and 45 days, respectively, for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the in ITA No. 2085/Chny/2014, the assessee could not file ... therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee’s submitted that the reasons given by the assessee’s does not come within the ambit of reasonable

Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1835/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2085/Chny/2014 and ITA No. 2513/Chny/2017 are time barred by 54 days and 45 days, respectively, for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the in ITA No. 2085/Chny/2014, the assessee could not file ... therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee’s submitted that the reasons given by the assessee’s does not come within the ambit of reasonable

Dharma Promoters Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2514/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2085/Chny/2014 and ITA No. 2513/Chny/2017 are time barred by 54 days and 45 days, respectively, for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the in ITA No. 2085/Chny/2014, the assessee could not file ... therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee’s submitted that the reasons given by the assessee’s does not come within the ambit of reasonable

Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2513/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2085/Chny/2014 and ITA No. 2513/Chny/2017 are time barred by 54 days and 45 days, respectively, for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the in ITA No. 2085/Chny/2014, the assessee could not file ... therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee’s submitted that the reasons given by the assessee’s does not come within the ambit of reasonable