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.

352 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 132(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi470Chennai408Mumbai352Hyderabad210Kolkata193Bangalore170Jaipur140Ahmedabad122Karnataka111Chandigarh109Pune87Amritsar81Surat74Visakhapatnam67Cochin35Calcutta35Nagpur33Indore30Rajkot26Guwahati22Patna19Raipur18Lucknow17Cuttack15Panaji14Telangana11Ranchi10Dehradun10SC9Jodhpur7Orissa6Kerala4Allahabad1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Section 143(3)67Section 153A55Section 153C50Section 13247Section 14844Section 25035Section 14735Search & Seizure

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 352 · Page 1 of 18

...
28
Disallowance27
Condonation of Delay27
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

VIIKING MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) CENTRAL CIR4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2384/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blev. Acit – Central Circle-4(4) Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd., 604-065, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Air India Building Hiranandani Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacj9884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkant Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Ms. Richa Gulati Department Represented By :

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3844/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

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

5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (iv) In Smt. Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra [(1987) Supp. SCC 338], Supreme Court had held that the court should not adopt an injustice- oriented N.G. Group; A.Y. 09–10 approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal

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

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 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 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

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

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

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

CONSOLE COMPONENTS (INDIA ) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 35/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.34 से 37/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar with Shri Ganpat SinghFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 200A

5. Both sides heard on the limited issue of delay in filing of the present set of appeals. We find that the impugned orders were passed on 08/11/2021 and 09/11/2021. The assessee had 60 days time from the date of communication of the order to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed appeal on 11/01/2022. The Hon’ble Apex

M/S. CONSOLE COMPONENTS (INDIA ) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 43/MUM/2022[2013-14 QUARTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.34 से 37/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar with Shri Ganpat SinghFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 200A

5. Both sides heard on the limited issue of delay in filing of the present set of appeals. We find that the impugned orders were passed on 08/11/2021 and 09/11/2021. The assessee had 60 days time from the date of communication of the order to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed appeal on 11/01/2022. The Hon’ble Apex

M/S. CONSOLE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS, CPC, , UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 36/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.34 से 37/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar with Shri Ganpat SinghFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 200A

5. Both sides heard on the limited issue of delay in filing of the present set of appeals. We find that the impugned orders were passed on 08/11/2021 and 09/11/2021. The assessee had 60 days time from the date of communication of the order to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed appeal on 11/01/2022. The Hon’ble Apex

M/S. CONSOLE COMPONENTS (INDIA ) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 40/MUM/2022[2014-15 Quarter -3]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.34 से 37/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar with Shri Ganpat SinghFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 200A

5. Both sides heard on the limited issue of delay in filing of the present set of appeals. We find that the impugned orders were passed on 08/11/2021 and 09/11/2021. The assessee had 60 days time from the date of communication of the order to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed appeal on 11/01/2022. The Hon’ble Apex

M/S. CONSOLE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 38/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.34 से 37/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar with Shri Ganpat SinghFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 200A

5. Both sides heard on the limited issue of delay in filing of the present set of appeals. We find that the impugned orders were passed on 08/11/2021 and 09/11/2021. The assessee had 60 days time from the date of communication of the order to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed appeal on 11/01/2022. The Hon’ble Apex

CONSOLE COMPONENTS (INDIA ) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC,, MUMBAI

In the result, impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 34/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.34 से 37/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar with Shri Ganpat SinghFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 200A

5. Both sides heard on the limited issue of delay in filing of the present set of appeals. We find that the impugned orders were passed on 08/11/2021 and 09/11/2021. The assessee had 60 days time from the date of communication of the order to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed appeal on 11/01/2022. The Hon’ble Apex

M/S. CONSOLE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 37/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.34 से 37/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar with Shri Ganpat SinghFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 200A

5. Both sides heard on the limited issue of delay in filing of the present set of appeals. We find that the impugned orders were passed on 08/11/2021 and 09/11/2021. The assessee had 60 days time from the date of communication of the order to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed appeal on 11/01/2022. The Hon’ble Apex