BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

93 results for “condonation of delay”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai445Mumbai390Delhi269Kolkata240Bangalore132Pune95Hyderabad93Ahmedabad84Chandigarh66Jaipur57Cuttack48Amritsar46Indore39Surat31Visakhapatnam30Lucknow24Cochin24Guwahati16Karnataka16SC14Raipur14Jodhpur10Rajkot10Patna9Allahabad7Nagpur7Calcutta6Agra3Kerala2Panaji2Jabalpur2Varanasi2Dehradun1Telangana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)77Depreciation59Section 26357Addition to Income52Section 15442Disallowance30Limitation/Time-bar28Section 143(2)26Condonation of Delay

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 1388/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 270A

condoned the delay of 36 days and\nadmitted the appeal.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant\nwas prevented by sufficient reason in not filing the appeal within the\ntime and submitted the reasons for delay in filing the appeal.\n5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and considered

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 258/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 14A24
Section 14723
Section 14822
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69B

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period of six years. We also echo our concern to the lethargic, callous and highly deplorable conduct

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 360/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 362/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 361/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 363/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

ASIAN TOURS AND TRAVELS,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Asian Tours & Travels, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad, Ward-10(1), 9-4-212/94, Opp To Hyderabad. Railway Station, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500003. Pan : Aakfa8752H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.AR
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

delay of 2263 days without considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the condonation petition. 3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that in view of the explanation-5, inserted by the Finance Act 2001 with effect from 01.04.2002, the depreciation

ANANTHA PVC PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

ITA 317/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.317/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1, Kurnool. Anantapur. Pan:Aagca0936J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. & Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

delay of 147 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.317/Hyd/2025 5 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC pipes. It filed its return of income

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 305/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 201

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos 304 to 310 SIBY MINING of six years. We also

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 307/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 201

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos 304 to 310 SIBY MINING of six years. We also

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 310/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 201

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos 304 to 310 SIBY MINING of six years. We also

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS),WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 309/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 201

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos 304 to 310 SIBY MINING of six years. We also

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 306/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 201

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos 304 to 310 SIBY MINING of six years. We also

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 308/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 201

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos 304 to 310 SIBY MINING of six years. We also

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 304/HYD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 201

condonation of delay is upheld. 10. However, in the later part of the order, the learned CIT (A) after holding the above, in para 7 (Supra) has noted the inaction of the Assessing Officer for not passing the order u/s 154 for a period Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos 304 to 310 SIBY MINING of six years. We also

KAD ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 882/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2006-07 Kad Entertainment (Ind) P Vs Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 2(1) No.503, Kanchanjunga Hyderabad Complex King Koti Road Hyderabad Pan: Aabck3884G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Laxmi Niwas Sharma, Ar For Revenue : Shri Djp Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Laxmi Niwas Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri DJP Anand, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

depreciation as per the I.T.Act resulting in business income of Rs.9,99,013/-. However, while computing total income, assessee ignored to ITA No.882/H/19 AY 2006-07 KAD Entertainment (Indi) Pvt. Ltd. add income of Rs.41,57,000/- from other sources to the business income of Rs.9,99,013/-. For this reason, the AO reopened the assessment by issuance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 535/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

condone the delay of 205 days in filing the above cross objections and admit the cross objections for adjudication. 23. Coming back to the Cross Objection No.4/Hyd./ 2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The Learned 37 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the grounds of cross- objections filed by the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 534/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

condone the delay of 205 days in filing the above cross objections and admit the cross objections for adjudication. 23. Coming back to the Cross Objection No.4/Hyd./ 2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The Learned 37 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the grounds of cross- objections filed by the assessee

DIVYA JYOTHI STEELS LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri K. Srinivasa Reddy
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for this AY on 21/09/2009 declaring an income