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.

16 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai131Karnataka102Chennai93Kolkata86Delhi77Chandigarh76Bangalore66Jaipur61Pune51Panaji38Ahmedabad36Cochin23Hyderabad16Indore16Lucknow11Surat9Amritsar8Nagpur8Rajkot6Cuttack6Varanasi5Visakhapatnam4Raipur4SC2Telangana2Guwahati2Calcutta2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Section 1549Section 32A9Section 143(1)6Depreciation6Condonation of Delay6Addition to Income6Disallowance6Section 143

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

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

5
Section 2634
Section 80P3
Section 1483

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

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar&For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32A

161(Sc)J is not applicable to facts of the present case because the issue under dispute in the said case was related to a Circular No.14j2006 of CBDT and not that of conditional legislation. Also the dispute was on treating a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society as Bank. In the said decision, a limited reference was made to decision

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

161 DTR 289 M/s Progressive Constructions Ltd Vs ACIT and by Pune Bench of Hon'ble ITAT [2018] 163 DTR 321 M/s Ashoka Infrastructure Ltd Vs Asst. CIT.” 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein

LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

161 taxmann.com 200 (Hyderabad-Trib). 6. The Ld.DR on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant has filed the return of income beyond the due date provided u/s 139(1) of the Act and further, Form 67 required to be filed under Rule

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 381/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1639/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1640/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1641/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 380/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

THE PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 101/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

condoned the delay of the assessee and remand the matter to ITAT to heard the appeal on merits. Now the appeal is before us to be heard on merits. 5. First coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that in the first round of appeal the case of the assessee was reopened

DATAFORMIX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1421/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dataformix Enterprise V Ito,Ward-17(1) Solutions Private Limited S. Signature Towers 1-33-47, Rtc Colony, Kondapur Gunrock, Tirumalgiri Hyderabad-500 004 Secunderabad-500 0074

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy

1)(c) were also pending, the Accountant of the assessee company pursued the Directors and the appeal was filed with a delay of 272 days 3. The ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that delay in filling the appeal may be condoned . The Ld.DR for the revenue has not objected to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 228/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company M/s. ADP Private Limited with PAN of AAACW2655C is engaged in providing broad range of software development, maintenance & support services and Information Technology Enabled Services to its Associated Enterprises. It filed its Return of Income

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 227/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company M/s. ADP Private Limited with PAN of AAACW2655C is engaged in providing broad range of software development, maintenance & support services and Information Technology Enabled Services to its Associated Enterprises. It filed its Return of Income

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY ,RAMADURGAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 660/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.660/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2016-17 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

condone the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and working as Sr. Foreman (Civil Contracts) in Facilities Management Department with M/s. Qatar Energy and filed letter dated 25.08.2022 from