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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai169Karnataka123Pune119Kolkata77Mumbai76Delhi68Raipur62Chandigarh59Ahmedabad57Nagpur54Bangalore38Calcutta35Surat28Jaipur27Hyderabad23Rajkot12Indore7Guwahati7Agra5Patna5Varanasi5Cuttack3Dehradun3Amritsar3Lucknow2Panaji2Visakhapatnam2SC2Andhra Pradesh1Cochin1Allahabad1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 80I60Section 153A45Section 143(3)13Deduction13Addition to Income12Disallowance10Section 1329Section 143(2)9Search & Seizure

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

condoning the delay. and the remaining ground nos.4 to 16 for discussion can be summarized as follows: 1) Ground 4: Disallowance of Rs.24,94,00,000 under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2) Grounds 5 to 7: Disallowance of Rs.21,08,45,001 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3) Grounds 8 and 9: Payments made

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

9
Condonation of Delay8
Limitation/Time-bar7
Section 1476

SEMANTIC SQUARE LLP,AMEENPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 718/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri CA, Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: MS. G Saratha, Sr. AR And Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

206-208 days delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal for all three appeals. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee Shri CA, Ravi Bharadwaj, referring to the reasons given by the assessee, requested to condone the delay in the interest

SEMANTIC SQUARE LLP,AMEENPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 719/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri CA, Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: MS. G Saratha, Sr. AR And Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

206-208 days delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal for all three appeals. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee Shri CA, Ravi Bharadwaj, referring to the reasons given by the assessee, requested to condone the delay in the interest

SEMANTIC SQUARE LLP,AMMENPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), SANGA REDDY

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 717/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri CA, Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: MS. G Saratha, Sr. AR And Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

206-208 days delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal for all three appeals. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee Shri CA, Ravi Bharadwaj, referring to the reasons given by the assessee, requested to condone the delay in the interest

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 282/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 281/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 280/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

NAGARJUNA ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee-company is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1081/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, M Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

section 143(1) of the Act, it was Covid period and due to on- going Covid pandemic, the assessee-company could not file appeal on or before the due date provided under the Act. No doubt, the assessee-company could not file petition for condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A), but, fact remains that, the delay in filing

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 15/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 956/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

SRIMANTHI KANTHIMATHI KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR KALYANAMANDAPAM TRUST,CHITTOOR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President\nAND\nShri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member\n\nआ.अपी.सं / ITA No.690/Hyd/2025\n(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2025-26)\n\n| Srimanthi Kanthimathi\nKumaraswamy Mudaliar\nKalyanamandapam Trust,\nChittoor\nPAN:ABDTS060C\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nCIT (Exemptions)\nHyderabad\n(Respondent)\n\nनिर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee by:\nराजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by::\nShri A Mahesh, CA\nShri Narender Kumar Naik,\nCIT(DR)\n\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: | 09/07/2025\nघोषणा की

Section 12A

206 ITD 115 (Kol)\n\n10. In any view of the matter, the 'rejection' order is against the principles of Natural\nJustice and ought to be set aside, as the learned CIT(E) did not communicate\nthe proposal for rejecting the order nor allowed an opportunity to the trust before\nrejecting the application, for alleged non-compliance with a condition

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 754/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 699/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 750/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged