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.

49 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 14Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328Chennai323Kolkata283Delhi197Karnataka110Hyderabad49Bangalore40Ahmedabad39Amritsar38Pune32Lucknow20Jaipur18Chandigarh18Cuttack12Visakhapatnam12Indore11Calcutta9Guwahati6Cochin5Panaji5Varanasi4Raipur3Surat2Rajkot2SC1Allahabad1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A115Section 143(3)62Addition to Income35Disallowance31Section 4028Section 26321Section 14813Section 143(2)10Condonation of Delay

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1305/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

14A, the grounds raised in CO are allowed. ITA No. 1493/Hyd/2014 by the assessee for AY 2009-10 15. There was a delay of 106 days in filing the appeal before us and to this effect the assessee filed an affidavit wherein the reasons affirmed for delay were similar to as mentioned in filing the CO with a delay

ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

10
Limitation/Time-bar9
Deduction8
Natural Justice8
ITA 1493/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

14A, the grounds raised in CO are allowed. ITA No. 1493/Hyd/2014 by the assessee for AY 2009-10 15. There was a delay of 106 days in filing the appeal before us and to this effect the assessee filed an affidavit wherein the reasons affirmed for delay were similar to as mentioned in filing the CO with a delay

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), , HYDERABAD vs. NEKKANTI SEA FOODS IMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1738/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nil anjan Dey
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A and Rule 8D will not apply to the present case. 6.1 In the case under consideration, after going through the financial statements filed by the assessee, we find that there is no dividend income received by the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue. 7. The assessee also

KISHORE MURALIDHAR AGARWAL, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 90/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar JainFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(2)Section 14A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. M/s Kishore Muralidhar Agarwal, Sec’bad. 3. Brief facts as taken from the appeal for AY 2009-10 are, assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 27/09/2009 admitting income of Rs. 6,55,950/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices

KISHORE MURALIDHAR AGARWAL, SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 753/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar JainFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(2)Section 14A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. M/s Kishore Muralidhar Agarwal, Sec’bad. 3. Brief facts as taken from the appeal for AY 2009-10 are, assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 27/09/2009 admitting income of Rs. 6,55,950/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices

SRK INFRACON (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(3), HYDERABADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

14A etc. Since the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue property, the ld.PCIT found that the assessment order dt.20.12.2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act and issued show cause notice dt.12.11.2018. In response to which, the authorized representative of the assessee company filed submissions

NCL HOMES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 136/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 3. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal with a delay of 337 days. It could be seen from the record that there is a delay of 351 days in preferring these appeals and the reason attributed for the delay in filing the appeals to the pandemic

GACM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 517/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Gacm Technologies Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Hyderabad (Formerly Known As Stampede Capital Limited) Hyderabad Pan : Aaacb7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.DR
Section 14ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 5

section 5 of The Limitation Act. The application seeking condonation of delay in presenting the appeal is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits.” 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer has passed the order on 27.12.2019 and in the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not uploaded

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57

condonation of delay, the fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 has held that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15 March, 2020 till 02 October, 2021 shall be excluded

SBPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 685/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The ld. CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the addition without appreciation of facts and law. 2. The NFAC erred in upholding the order passed by the AO even though the AO rejected the claim

DHARMA TEJA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1592/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 201(1)Section 4Section 40

condoned the delay, but however he confirmed the addition. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A)] is erroneous both on facts

DHARMA TEJA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1593/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 201(1)Section 4Section 40

condoned the delay, but however he confirmed the addition. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A)] is erroneous both on facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HBL POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1386/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

section 14A of the Act. Page 2 of 8 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, did not consider the request of the assessee to allow the claim of warranty expenditure of Rs. 662.21 Lakhs, on the ground that it was a new claim not to be found in return of income and also that no reason was assigned for change

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TELANGANA STATE POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Telangana State Power Income-Tax, Generation Corporation Circle – 2(2), Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aafct 0257Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Danda Srinivas Assessee By: Shri Chandramouleswara Rao Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Danda Srinivas
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. We notice at the outset that revenue’s instant appeal suffers from 90 days delay in filing. To this effect, the ld. DR filed an affidavit wherein it was affirmed that due to COVIP pandemic and consequent lockdown declared by the Govt. of India

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SUJANA UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 88/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

delay is condoned therefore. 3. The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that provisions of section 14A

SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are allowed in above terms

ITA 345/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

condoning the delay. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact there is no exempt income earned by your appellant and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.Your appellant submits that since there is no exempt income earned by your appellant, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 5.Your appellant submits that in view

SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are allowed in above terms

ITA 346/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

condoning the delay. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact there is no exempt income earned by your appellant and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.Your appellant submits that since there is no exempt income earned by your appellant, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 5.Your appellant submits that in view

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INTEGRATED CLEANROOM TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 428/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Integrated Cleanroom Tax, Circle 2(1) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aabci0328R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Kiran Katta, Dr Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Date Of Hearing: 16/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Kiran Katta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

delay is condoned and we proceed with the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30th October, 2017 admitting loss of Rs.40,89,46,720/-. Later on assessee revised the return on 27th September,2018 admitting total income of Rs. 40,75,75,260/-; and the case was selected for complete

ANDHRA CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 142/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri G.B.S. Maitreya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 194CSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 03 days. It has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 895/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43BSection 68

condoning the delay without giving any reasons. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98