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.

80 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna304Chennai278Mumbai137Delhi117Ahmedabad104Karnataka102Kolkata86Pune81Hyderabad80Bangalore78Jaipur63Chandigarh39Calcutta34Nagpur27Cochin23Visakhapatnam21Indore21Surat21Lucknow18Rajkot17Cuttack10Amritsar10Allahabad8Varanasi7Panaji6Kerala6Guwahati5Raipur5Jodhpur4SC3Agra2Jabalpur2Dehradun2Telangana1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 143(3)72Addition to Income59Search & Seizure33Limitation/Time-bar32Section 143(1)26Section 6826Section 153A26Cash Deposit

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4

25
Disallowance22
Section 26318
Section 14418

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 1415/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 359/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SRI AJEYA SANKARA TRUST,TIRUPATI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1366/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1366/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Ajeya Sankara Trust Vs. Cit (Exemption) Tirupati Hyderabad Pan:Aaxts2264F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H. Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 17/05/2025 Of Cit (Exemption) Whereby The Application Of The Assessee In Form 10Ab Seeking Regular Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Was Rejected On The Ground Of Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Advocate H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

condonation of the delay, if there is a reasonable cause for filing the application. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the amendment of inserting the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) and the cause of delay in filing the application has been explained by the assessee, the same may be treated as filed

UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 494/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(1)

150 of 2016 dated 08.06.2016 which granted relief in the favour of assessee and had held that the employees' contribution of PF & ESI paid before the date of filing of return is an allowable expenditure. Since the issue under appeal is a settled issue, the AO may consider the issue u/s 154 after considering necessary supporting evidences filed

UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 493/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(1)

150 of 2016 dated 08.06.2016 which granted relief in the favour of assessee and had held that the employees' contribution of PF & ESI paid before the date of filing of return is an allowable expenditure. Since the issue under appeal is a settled issue, the AO may consider the issue u/s 154 after considering necessary supporting evidences filed

ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee bank is dismissed as unadmitted

ITA 1086/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2011-12 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Bank, Income Tax, Kadapa. Range - 2 Tirupati. Pan – Aamfa 8921A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Seshachalam Revenue By : Shri Pathlevath Peerya Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2018 Order Per D. Manmohan: This Is An Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee, A Cooperative Society. Penalty Levied By The A.O U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act @ 150% Of The Amount Sought To Be Evaded By Reason Of Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars, Was Confirmed By The Cit(A) & Thus The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Along With An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 178 Days. In The Affidavit Filed Along With Form- 36, The Chairman & Chief Managing Director Of The Assessee Bank Deposed As Under: “Our Appeal Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, For The A.Y 2011-12 Was Filed Before The Cit(A), Kurnool On 20.08.2014 & Was Duly Disposed Off & A Certified Copy Of The Appellate Order Was Also Served On Us. During The Process The Said Order Being Examined By Various

For Appellant: Shri G. SeshachalamFor Respondent: Shri Pathlevath Peerya
Section 271(1)(c)

150% of the amount sought to be evaded by reason of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, was confirmed by the CIT(A) and thus the assessee preferred an appeal along with an affidavit for condonation of delay of 178 days. In the affidavit filed along with Form- 36, the Chairman and Chief Managing Director of the assessee bank deposed as under

CHILLAKURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO V 529,PELLAKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1522/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1522/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Chillakuru Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Ward-1, Gudur. Cooperative Society Vs. Pin – 524 101. Limited No.529, State Of Andhra Pellakur. Pradesh. Pin – 524 129. Tirupati. Pan Aabac1880A (Appellant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. AR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 80ASection 80P

Section 148 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that a return filed u/s 148 cannot be considered for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80P. That the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 is deemed to be a return u/s 139(4), and therefore all lawful claims including deduction u/s 80P are maintainable therein. Reliance

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 717/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 721/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 716/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 718/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 722/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 719/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 720/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

D. E. SHAW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1154/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, SR-DR
Section 143(3)

delay of 66 days in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 6. ITA No.1154/Hyd/2024 4 ITA No.1154/Hyd/2024 5 7. The facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing Software Development Services

JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

condone the delay of 168 days in adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Limited Liability Partnership, engaged in the business of marketing open plots by purchase and selling through Agents, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 on 22.07.2022, declaring a business loss

ITO., WARD 14(1), HYDERABAD vs. JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

condone the delay of 168 days in adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Limited Liability Partnership, engaged in the business of marketing open plots by purchase and selling through Agents, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 on 22.07.2022, declaring a business loss

VANISRI MUKTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 521/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Vanisri Mukta Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Amrpm7019G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Ld.Dr 08.10.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 10.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Ld.DR
Section 1Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. In this case, the learned Assessing Officer in paragraph No.4 and 6 of the assessment order dated 30/03/2022 mentioned as under : “4. Further, the assessee has submitted that she has purchased immovable property for a total consideration of Rs.2,38,50,150/- and her share in the immovable property