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.

24 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 208clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai122Karnataka100Mumbai95Chandigarh62Ahmedabad55Kolkata54Delhi44Bangalore38Jaipur36Hyderabad24Pune22Surat15Indore14Cuttack11Rajkot10Lucknow8Cochin8Nagpur7Amritsar5Raipur4SC4Patna3Guwahati3Visakhapatnam2Calcutta2Jabalpur2Agra2Orissa1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80I57Section 153A45Section 143(3)21Addition to Income19Deduction13Section 143(2)12Section 6811Disallowance11Section 132

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

condone the delay of 208 days in filing the above three appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4 ITA.Nos.717, 718 and 719/Hyd./2025 5. Brief facts of the case extracted from ITA.No.717/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021 are that, the assessee had filed it’s return of income for the assessment year

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

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 80P10
Search & Seizure10
Section 1488

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

condone the delay of 208 days in filing the above three appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4 ITA.Nos.717, 718 and 719/Hyd./2025 5. Brief facts of the case extracted from ITA.No.717/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021 are that, the assessee had filed it’s return of income for the assessment year

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

condone the delay of 208 days in filing the above three appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4 ITA.Nos.717, 718 and 719/Hyd./2025 5. Brief facts of the case extracted from ITA.No.717/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021 are that, the assessee had filed it’s return of income for the assessment year

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1266/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)Section 234BSection 68

section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee, assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 admitting total income of Rs. 37,38,670/-. On credible information that assessee and one Chetan Agarwal are regularly conducting dabba trading

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil construction of roads, culverts buildings etc. The assessee filed it's return of income for the assessment year

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

ITA 996/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43BSection 68

208/-; (iv) disallowance towards TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246/- on account of estimated profit on undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246/-, but at the same time declined the assessee’s claim regarding the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO, while initiating proceedings

THE INDUR INTIDEEPAM PRODUCERS MA CO-OP SOCIETIES FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

ITA 339/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

delay in filing this appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-AR
Section 143(1)Section 80I

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

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. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1745/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

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. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1663/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

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. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1120/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

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. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, 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 751/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

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

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

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