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.

94 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 120(4)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai101Mumbai94Chandigarh87Delhi64Pune50Kolkata48Raipur45Hyderabad40Bangalore38Jaipur36Cochin17Cuttack16Rajkot15Ahmedabad10Visakhapatnam8Indore8Patna7Lucknow7Varanasi6SC6Guwahati5Jodhpur5Nagpur4Amritsar4Surat4Jabalpur2Agra1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14A52Addition to Income45Section 153C36Penalty31Section 143(3)30Section 25026Section 14819Condonation of Delay19Disallowance

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

Section 2(7) r.w.s. 120(4)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT held that the assessee's assertions, in the additional ground, after 15 years has no cogent basis, whatsoever and dismissed the additional ground. The relevant extract from the said order is as below: "20. In this case, the only reason for the assessee's allegation that

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5

16
Section 153A14
Section 80I14
Section 6813

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4743/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4744/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4413/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4603/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

ITA 202/MUM/2004[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3553/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4745/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 114/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3867/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief the CBDT to either the Director General o the CBDT to either the Director General o Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the Commissioner or Commissioner

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1497/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit-14(2)(2) M/S. Pfizer Limited 461, 4Th Floor The Capital, 802/1901 Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Plot No. C-70, G Block M.K. Road Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020. Bandra East, Mumbai 400 0051. Pan : Aaacp3334M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Kalra

section 120(4)(b) or 127 of the Act by the CIT or DCIT or Pr.CIT, etc., and therefore assessment order should be declared invalid. 14. Now, whether the benefit can be given to the assessee because the department could not trace the records after a lapse of 16 years for the reason that due to restructuring and change

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4829/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4828/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4834/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4833/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4832/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4831/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4830/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour