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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 142A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai20Chandigarh17Cochin11Pune8Delhi6Hyderabad6Mumbai5Bangalore4Lucknow3Raipur2Kolkata2Amritsar2Jabalpur1Cuttack1Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 684Section 694Condonation of Delay4Addition to Income2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 599/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 69Section 69A

condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal. Therefore, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. Coming to the original grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of unexplained 12 investment in jewellery, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that during the course of search

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1154/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

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 appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

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 appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1153/HYD/2014[2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

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 appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1901/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

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 appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

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

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

condone the delay and admit the C.O., of the assessee for hearing. 5. First, we take up the appeal of Revenue i.e. ITA 97/Hyd/2019 for adjudication. 5.1. Though the assessee has raised six grounds but out of them, ground No.1 is general in nature, ground no. 2 is with respect to addition of Rs.64,10,599/- made