“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

Surjit Singh 29-D Guru Amar Dass Avenue Ajanala Road Amritsar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Amritsar Income Tax Office Aaykar Bhawan Maqbool Road Amritsar, Amritsar

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

ITA 409/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

271D of the I.T. Act. 61, for violation of provisions of section 269SS. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 408&409/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of Delay: It is pointed out by the registry that both the appeals relating to the same assessment year has been filed belatedly by 404 days ... 409/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 before the tribunal belated by more than four hundred days in both cases, and he prayed for condoning the delay and for admission of the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. The Ld. DR raised objection considering the length of the delay and submitted that

Surjit Singh 29-D Guru Mar Dass Avenue Ajnala Road Amritsar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Amritsar Incoem Tax Office Aaykar Bhawan Maqbool Road Amritsar, Amritsar

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

ITA 408/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

appellant & material available on record. 10. Insofar as delay in filing is concerned; the appellant filed separate applications dt. 06/02/2025 seeking condonation of delay, wherein it has claimed that much of the delay is attributable to its consultant Mr Mehul Shah’s attempt to co-ordinate with CA Vipul Shah ... Thus, the sum and substance of objection of the respondent is twofold that; (i) the reasons stated in seeking condonation of delay and behind non prosecution of appeals are prima-facie flimsy, without any evidence and they not only lack bonafide, but are with much less imputables

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

Prahladbhai Kashiram Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1858/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2018-19 Prahladbhai Kashiram Patel Ito, Ward-1 Mandali Para Vs Gandhinagar. Krushanagar Society Mandali Vihar Mansa Gandhinagar. Pan : Bsapp3554 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar : Revenue By Shri Ravindra, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2025

Section 115BSection 250

facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay of 107 days in filing of appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned ... course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. There is a delay of 122 days in filing the present appeal. A separate affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the assessee is an old/aged person of 74 years. That he was illiterate

Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, Satara vs. ITO WD No - 04, Satara

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

ITA 1692/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1692/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, Azad S Ward-4, Satara. Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Dated 19.09.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the judgments passed by various courts in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the said appeal 7. That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC ... from penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is also set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. We direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing. Assessee shall file necessary details before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds

Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons, hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal as under. 3. We also observe from the appeals folders Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1496,1497, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025 that ... took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan, Kolkata

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

ITA 1757/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata……...…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan……………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1, R N Mukherjee Road, Dalhousie, Kol-1.. [Pan: Alkpk2298K] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Of The Cit(A)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 04 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition 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 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarawal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and

ITA 1496/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons, hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal as under. We also observe from the appeals folders Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1496,1497, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025 that ... took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The Id. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Hitech Flyash India Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3105/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3105/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Hitech Fly Ash India Pvt Ltd., Acit, 2/101-5, Thiruchendur Road, Income Tax Office Muthiahpuram Tuticorn, Tirunelveli, Nellai City Centre Tuticorin-628005, Tiruchendup. Road Tamil Nadu Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli-627011 [Pan: Aabch 7093 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent)

significant emotional and administrative distress severally affecting his ability to focus on the companies affairs and legal obligations. Therefore, he pleaded that after condoning the delay, the assessee may be given chance to prosecute the case before the lower authority. The Ld. DR relied upon the order ... assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of more than3 years. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay as the assessee failed to furnish any cogentexplanation for such inordinate delay. Before us also, the Hitech Fly Ash India Pvt Ltd Vs ACTI, Tirunelveli

Kalavathy Nagarajan, Tiruvarur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2832/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2832/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Kalavathy Nagarajan, The Assistant Commissioner 33, T Agraharam, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tiruvarur H.O., Circle 2(1), Vijayapuram, Trichy. Tiruvarur – 610 001. Pan: Aktpk 3586A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee had not filed application for condonation of delay before the FAA along with the appeal but in Form 35 stated the reasons for seeking condonation of delay. The FAA had issued various ... notices and letters asking the assessee to furnish the reasons for condonation of delay with supporting evidences. The assessee had filed a letter stating the reasons for delay along with evidences. The reasons stated by the assessee was that (i) despite providing the required documents to her consultant for filing

Cem Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2614/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. B. Lakshmi, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

delay of about three months as ‘defective’ since the assessee has neither mentioned this delay in Form 35 nor furnished any request for condonation of delay. However, the assessee failed to rectify the defect of Form 35 despite the ld.CIT(A) provided the opportunity and did not respond ... prayed for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to explain and set off the credits to arrive at the final liabilities by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before

R 249 Kulithalai Co-Op Pard Bank Limited, Karur vs. Income Tax Officer, Karur

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

ITA 2543/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

deduction U/s.80P of the Act, of Rs.18,19,620/-. The assessee has also filed petition U/s.119 of the Act, before the ld.PCIT for condonation of delay in filing the return of Income. 4. The return was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru U/s.143(1) of the Act on 04/04/2023 denying ... with a delay of 472 days. The ld.CIT(A) considering the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and the petition for condonation of delay in filing the return of income before the ld.PCIT, Madurai, dismissed the appeal by holding as under: “DECISION All materials available on record have been

Sri. Shivayogi Muneswara Swamy Vidya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Exemption, Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Shivayogi Muniswara Vs. Ito, Swamy Vidyapeetha, Ward –3 (Exemption), 1 Maralegavi Mutta, Kanakapura Tq, Bangalore. Kanakapura – 562 117, Karnataka. Pan : Aahts 1565 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ramaraju, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Ramaraju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)

there was delay assessee could have opted beneficial section under section 119(2)(b) of the Act and could have applied for condonation of delay but it did not do so. In the rejoinder learned DR further submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court had extended due date in MA No.21/2022

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6677/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253

there is a delay of 990 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, which is reproduced herein below: (i) The Assessee ("the Applicant" herein) has filed the captioned appeal under section ... against this action of the Ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal with a prayer to condone the delay in filing this appeal, since (i) The delay is caused for reasons beyond the control of the Assessee; (ii) The delay was not deliberate

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6676/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253