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.

356 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 132clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi477Chennai409Mumbai356Hyderabad211Kolkata193Bangalore170Jaipur139Ahmedabad122Karnataka112Chandigarh109Pune87Amritsar81Surat74Visakhapatnam67Calcutta36Cochin34Nagpur33Indore31Rajkot26Guwahati22Patna19Raipur18Lucknow18Cuttack15Panaji14Telangana11Ranchi10Dehradun10SC9Jodhpur8Orissa6Kerala4Allahabad1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)67Addition to Income67Section 153A55Section 153C50Section 13248Section 14844Section 25036Section 14735Condonation of Delay

DCIT CC-7(2) , MUMBAIA vs. M/S. DADASHREE REMEDIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2184/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the Revenue for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding that AO did not have jurisdiction to make additions in an assessment u/s 153A

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 3652/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai

Showing 1–20 of 356 · Page 1 of 18

...
28
Search & Seizure28
Disallowance25
Section 1123
04 Oct 2018
AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Syed Nadeem
Section 133(6)Section 40A(2)(b)

condone the delay of 907 days in filing the appeal. Resultantly, 48 I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 & 1238/Mum/2018 Karan R. Shah this application is allowed and appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 23. The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO on account of addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EVERGREEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Room No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ……………. Appellant V/S Evergreen Financial Services, Kanakia Future City, Cts 101, Behind Dr. L H Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai-400093. ……………. Respondent Pan : Aabfe 9028 R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 37Section 68

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection by the assessee and we proceed to decide the same on merits. 7. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in assessee’s cross-objection, pertains to the validity of additions made under section 153A of the Act in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. 8. The brief facts

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

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4025/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri DG Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section 132

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri DG Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section 132

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4026/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri DG Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section 132

SHREE RAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4027/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri DG Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 5. The first common issue in these four appeals of assessee is as regards to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact there was no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 10.03.2011 under section 132

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1496/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. MadhuriFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

132 upon a person not referred to in Section 153A of IT Act. He submitted that this person not referred to in Section 153A of IT Act. He submitted that this person not referred to in Section 153A of IT Act. He submitted that this was an issue of law and therefore, the ITAT should have permitted

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2121/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2122/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2119/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2495/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2118/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2494/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2498/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2497/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2496/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2120/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2123/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089- 6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned