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.

427 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 02clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai427Chennai381Kolkata379Delhi274Pune259Ahmedabad208Bangalore189Hyderabad174Jaipur151Visakhapatnam80Lucknow78Surat67Chandigarh63Amritsar60Indore52Cuttack44Raipur41Rajkot34Panaji33Nagpur25Patna24Cochin17Allahabad16Guwahati16Agra9Telangana8Jodhpur6SC6Varanasi5Jabalpur4Karnataka4Calcutta3Orissa2Dehradun2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E121Section 200A99Section 143(3)69Addition to Income48Section 14832Condonation of Delay30Section 25027Disallowance27Section 14A

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2826/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Tata Krishna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80J

condone the belated claim under section 80AC. under section 80AC. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the 5. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the subject adjustment carried

Showing 1–20 of 427 · Page 1 of 22

...
25
Section 143(1)21
Limitation/Time-bar21
Section 14419

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2870/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Venkata Anil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 246Section 250

02, 91,619/-. iv) The appellant has also filed an application to condone the delay on filing the Form 10B for the relevant assessment year under consideration in accordance with CBDT Circular 16/2022 dated 19-07-2022. Copy of is attached herewith for your reference. In this regard, we would like to bring your attention that the delay in filing

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2147/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 119(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. DR submits that only the CBDT has the power to condone the delay and the assessee should have made an application to the Board for condonation of delay. Therefore, since the return filed was delayed the Assessing Officer has rightly ignored the revised return of income as the original return

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 119(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. DR submits that only the CBDT has the power to condone the delay and the assessee should have made an application to the Board for condonation of delay. Therefore, since the return filed was delayed the Assessing Officer has rightly ignored the revised return of income as the original return

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 659/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80H

02-03 onwards. Hence rectification applications were filed as advised. 13) I say that the delayed in filing this appeal is due wrong course of legal option and action, unfortunately advised by my legal consultant. 14) I say that due to wrong advise by Tax consultant, I found that my returned income has been enhanced

NARAYAN J. PAGARANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 658/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80H

02-03 onwards. Hence rectification applications were filed as advised. 13) I say that the delayed in filing this appeal is due wrong course of legal option and action, unfortunately advised by my legal consultant. 14) I say that due to wrong advise by Tax consultant, I found that my returned income has been enhanced

M/S N. G. GROUP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(2)(, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 503/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

condone the delay in filing of the appeal of 485 days. 010. Coming the facts of the case, assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of developing and building of residential and commercial premises. It filed its return of income on 30th September 2009 declaring nil income. Thereafter, assessment order under Section

ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri H P Mahajani with ShriFor Respondent: Shri M.C.Omi Ningshen,DR
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 249(3) empowers learned CIT(A) to admit an appeal after expiry of the said period stipulated u/s 249(2) and condone delay if he is satisfied that the appellant has ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting an appeal within time stipulated u/s 249(2). This is the scheme of the Act so far as powers of learned

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 841/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 842/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 845/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 844/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 843/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

section 248 of the Act lies with him and that the CBDT circulars laying down guidelines for condoning delay in filing refund claims does not apply to such appeals. The CIT(A), having been shown reasonable cause, ought to have condoned the delay by taking a liberal view and entertained the appeal rather than favoring technicalities over substantial justice

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1181/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 3374/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

PURVAG COMMODITIES & DERIVATIVES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 6387/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6387/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Purvag Commodities & Vs. The Assistant Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of 301-308, Bhagwati House, Income Tax- Central Plot A/19, Veera Desai Road, Circle 38, Andheri (W), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 058. M.K.Road, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri. Neelkanth Khandelwal(AR)For Respondent: Shri. M.C. Omi Ningshen(DR)
Section 143Section 14A

condoned the delay of only 37 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer. 2. The CIT (A) erred in not disposing of the following grounds of appeal on merits- (a) Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 24,02,674/- whereas the appellant has not earned any dividend income or exempted income

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3107/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhat
Section 2(22)(e)

delay is, therefore, condoned. We accordingly proceed to cons the appeal on merits. the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration

RAHUL GANGARAM KANAGANDULA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 3978/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula 203, Vikas Darshan, Income Tax Officer, Shankar Puppala Road, Ward 20(3)(1) 12Th Lane Nagpada, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alepk1983F

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

02. The assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the learned Assessing Officer, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not justifiable both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee before deciding the appeal

MODERN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bharat L. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: ShriSuresh Gaikwad, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 271(1)

02. ITA No. 1113/Mum/2023 is filed against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2011-12 dated 28th February, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section ITA Nos. 1113, 1117 & 1118/Mum/2023 Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys

ICL EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-EXEM. CIRCLE 1, MUMBAI, EXEMPTION. CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2761/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shir Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanicl Education Society Dcit Exem. Circle 1, 104, Sir Vithaldas Chambers, 16, Mtnl Building, Pedder Road, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 023 Pan: Aaati 1111 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 250

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B and to claim the benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Act. 2. The brief facts as culled out from the proceedings of lower authorities are that the assessee is a charitable Trust registered with Charity Commissioner, Mumbai vide Registration No. F-5038, Mumbai dated 16th October, 1978. The Trust is also