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.

40 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai259Delhi151Kolkata150Mumbai96Bangalore88Nagpur59Jaipur43Hyderabad40Pune39Indore33Chandigarh26Ahmedabad24Lucknow24Surat22Cuttack17Amritsar17Visakhapatnam15Raipur10Varanasi6Cochin5Rajkot3Calcutta3Patna3SC3Guwahati2Allahabad2Panaji1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 43B94Section 36(1)(va)51Section 143(1)34Addition to Income30Disallowance28Section 4019Section 139(1)19Section 143(3)18Section 36

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)

condoning the delay, observed that “since the issue under appeal is a settled issue, the AO may consider the issue u/s 154 after considering the necessary supporting evidences filed by the appellant allow the same as per law.” We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report i.e. Form No. 3CD for both the years at Sl.No

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

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

17
Deduction12
Natural Justice8
Condonation of Delay8
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)

condoning the delay, observed that “since the issue under appeal is a settled issue, the AO may consider the issue u/s 154 after considering the necessary supporting evidences filed by the appellant allow the same as per law.” We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report i.e. Form No. 3CD for both the years at Sl.No

DARSHAN VIJAYSINH BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, FACELESS CENTER DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 448/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the slight delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeals for both the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 which are identical in nature however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

DARSHAN V BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 447/HYD/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the slight delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeals for both the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 which are identical in nature however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

SREE KRISHNA AUTOMOTIVES HYDERABAD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 139/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sree Krishna Automotives Vs. Dy. Cit, Hyderabad (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aakcs5353H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.10.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.30,53,317/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36 Of The I.T. Act On A/C Of Delayed Payment Of Pf & Esi.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murty, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of automobile dealership business. It filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.14,99,78,293/-. The return was processed

VE VEE'S MANAGERIAL SERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 167/Hyd/2022 & 168/Hyd/2022 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 167/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Y.V.Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.Narmada,CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,57,34,616/- made by the AO in the order passed u/s. 154 of the I.T.Act on account of delayed payment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 637/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

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. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 722/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

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. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 710/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

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. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income

NARENDER AGARWAL,M/S JR FORGINGS 39/A/1 ,IDA BALANAGAR HYDERABAD 500037 ,TELANGANA INDIA vs. ITO WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 38/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Narender Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-11(3) Prop M/S. Jr Forgings Hyderabad 39/A/1, Ida Balanagar Hyderabad-500 037 Pan : Aampa4460G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Krishnan Revenue By: Shri T.Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2021 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Ay 2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 25 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri KrishnanFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however these relate to the order of ld.CIT(A), NFAC in sustaining the adjustment of Rs. 1,42,980/-by the CPC, Bangalore on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. 4. Facts

LSC STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 56/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Lsc Steels Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 5-2-196/1, Of Income Tax, Near Ravi Weigh Bridge Circle – 16(1), Distillery Road Hyderabad. Secunderabad Hyderabad-500003 Pan : Aabcl2762J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Mutha Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2021 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Ay 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 47 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee, For Which Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The only ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- 2 ITA 56/Hyd/2022 1. The commissioner ought to have allowed employee contribution remitted of Rs. 1,00,825/- after the due date with minor delay but paid before the filing of income tax return u/s. 139(1). 4. Facts of the case

SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DIST CO-OP CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,,NELLORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

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

ITA 131/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore Vs. Acit,Circle-1, Nellore Dist Co-Op Central Bank 24-2-438, 1St Floor, Limited Gt Road 16-2-249, Central Bank Nellore-524001 Building Near Mahatma Gandhi Statue, Trunk Road Nellore Andhra Pradesh-524 001

For Appellant: Shri E.Phalguna Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however these all relate to the order of the NFAC in sustaining the disallowances made by the AO amounting to Rs. 33,34,014/- being delay in deposit of Employee’s contribution to PF. 4. Facts of the case

GANESH SAND BLASTING WORKS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 226/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Y. Sesha Srinivas,DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A)/ NFAC in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.2,05,549/- by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on Page

C2D SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 217/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Sri B. Sunil Kumar,DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the NFAC in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.3,23,096/- for the delayed Page 1 of 4 ITA No 217 of 2022 C2D Software Private Ltd Hyderabad payment of employees’ contribution towards

AGRAWALA SWEETS AND RESTAURANT,HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 72/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, ARFor Respondent: 20-06-2022
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Learned Assessing Officer made a disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act for the delayed payments of ESI/PF contribution of the employees by the employer, but which was paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s.139

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 67/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(1)Section 37Section 40Section 43B

43B of the Act at Rs. 1,00,01,378/- and Rs. 4,22,647/-. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) referred to the submissions made by the assessee and also to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd., vs. CIT in Civil

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 68/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(1)Section 37Section 40Section 43B

43B of the Act at Rs. 1,00,01,378/- and Rs. 4,22,647/-. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) referred to the submissions made by the assessee and also to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd., vs. CIT in Civil

NARAYANSINTHY GAJENDRA PATRO,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 13(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

condone the delay of 326 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee has pleaded the following grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in upholding the Learned Centralized Processing Centre ("Ld.CPC") Order, which is bad in law and against

CHEDEDEEPU SRINIVAS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Reddy, AR appeared for Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 37

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. The impugned order of the learned Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned

LSC STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 489/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Sanjay Mutha, CAFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

delay in payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI rejecting the submission of the assessee that the amounts were paid well within the due date for filing of return of u/s 139(1) and hence allowable as deduction u/s 43B. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made