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.

38 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 36(1)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai219Chennai185Delhi148Karnataka136Pune80Ahmedabad77Bangalore76Chandigarh69Nagpur68Kolkata65Jaipur64Raipur45Hyderabad38Amritsar34Calcutta34Panaji29Cuttack18Indore16Lucknow16Guwahati15Cochin15Surat13Visakhapatnam12Rajkot12SC11Telangana8Patna6Varanasi6Rajasthan4Orissa3Dehradun2Agra1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 80I54Section 153A45Section 143(3)39Addition to Income27Deduction18Section 143(2)17Disallowance17Section 26316Section 132

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 38 · Page 1 of 2

14
Search & Seizure14
Section 80P13
Condonation of Delay11

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 10. Coming to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT for revising the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT had gravely erred in law and facts

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1199/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri RV. Chalam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

condone the delay. In view of this difficulty, we are unable to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the assessee. We have also gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the assessee. That was a case where the assessee was denied the benefit of Section

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

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

vii) Any plant or machinery which before its installation by the assessee was used either within or outside India by any other person. (viii) Any plant or machinery installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation including accommodation in the nature of a guest house, (ix) Any office appliances including computers or computer software. (x) Any vehicle

MANNE HAREESH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Manne Hareesh, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad-500 0016 Ward 6(2), Pan Admpm6479L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T.Rama Murthy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R) Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2021 O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad Order Dt.10.10.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “ 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals Erred Both On Facts & Provisions Of Law In Appreciating The Fact That Assessing Officer Failed Make Proper Conclusion/ Enquiry Before Making The Addition Made & Passing The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri T.Rama Murthy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 147Section 36(1)(vii)

delay of 303 days 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 Ground Nos.1, 2 & 6 are general in nature and does not require any adjudication thereon. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

C & K MANAGEMENT LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1918/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 C&K Management Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4481D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. Maruthi Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - 1, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 04/05/2018 For Ay 2013-14 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Ao Disallowed Rs.58,170/-W.R.T Pf & Esi Payments Stating This Amount Is Not Paid Before The Due

For Appellant: Shri J. Maruthi RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43B

36(1)(vii) of IT Act. The Ld. AO erred in disallowing this amount and Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 5. The Ld. AO erred in the assessment order in not quantifying (a) the amount of income tax refundable to the Appellant and (b) the interest payable to the Appellant on the income tax refund amount

THE SULLURPET FARMERS SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

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

ITA 1346/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1346/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2017-2018) The Sullurpet Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Sullurpeta – 524 121. Vs. Ward-1, Gudur. Nellore District. Pin – 524 101. Pan Aacat7587J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Harsha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA HarshaFor Respondent: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 80P

condone the said delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. “The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding

PRITHVI INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 47/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanRao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)

condone the delay of 623 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “ 1. Erred in making the addition of Rs. 24,88,54,488/- as adjustment towards arms length price in respect of the international truncations entered into with associated enterprises. 2. Erred

SHV ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1316/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 263

1), [PAN No. AACCS8676D] Hyderabad अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा / Assessee by: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, AR राज" व "ारा / Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 29/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 25/07/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 09/11/2015, passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-16(2) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 298/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 Progressive Constructions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 16(2), Limited, Hyderabad. #7Th Floor, Raghava North Block, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids – 500001, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2274M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36

section 36[1][vii] of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Whether the learned Authorities below are correct in disallowing the bad debts claimed by the Appellant on percentage on the basis of increase in turnover, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), HYDERABAD vs. MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 128/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

delay stands condoned accordingly. 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive ground raised before us in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 36(1)(vii

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 300/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 322/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 323/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 301/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 302/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

M/S SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay as the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. 2 I.T.A. No. 79/Hyd/2014 M/s Sujana Towers Ltd. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are, the assessee is a Company engaged in the manufacture of Iron and steel products, Telecom Products and Power Transmission Towers. It filed its return

SREE KANYAKA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT CREDIT AND MARKETG. SOCIETY LIMITED,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HINDUPUR

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

ITA 224/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Shree Raksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.224/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Co- op Society which is carrying on the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members, which is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies