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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi118Chennai67Amritsar60Bangalore33Chandigarh27Jaipur22Pune13Nagpur12Mumbai9Hyderabad7Raipur6Ahmedabad5Lucknow5Rajkot5Patna4Kolkata3Dehradun2Visakhapatnam1Guwahati1Orissa1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 153A12Section 153C12Section 153D9Section 143(3)8Addition to Income8Section 1325Section 143(2)5Limitation/Time-bar5Section 144

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 :

condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal filed in Form no 36 :– “The following grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to one another – 1. The Assistant Commissioner of income-tax, Central

VIVEK MEHROTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2359/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai
4
Condonation of Delay4
Section 683
Unexplained Money2
30 Jan 2023
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 69ASection 6A

153D of the Act cannot be regarded as a mistake. Further, the present is a case, where, the assessing officer, lacked jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act. In this regard, attention is invited to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 309 CTR 433 (Annexure 5 hereto), where

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

153D of the Act.” 4. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the grounds challenging the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) on merits. On the other hand, the assessee has filed the cross-objection challenging the additions made under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the 3 Evergreen Financial Services

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. MAHIPATRAY V. SHAH, HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3042/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, A/R (appeared virtually)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68Section 69C

153D of the Act is invalid. 7. The respondent reserves the right to add amend or alter or all the ground of cross objection as above.” 4. Since the cross-objection goes to the root of the matter, we decided to adjudicate it first. The cross objection is barred by limitation. The assessee has requested for condonation of delay

DCIT (IT) – 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JEFFERIES SINGAPORE LIMITED , SINGAPORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3042/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, A/R (appeared virtually)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68Section 69C

153D of the Act is invalid. 7. The respondent reserves the right to add amend or alter or all the ground of cross objection as above.” 4. Since the cross-objection goes to the root of the matter, we decided to adjudicate it first. The cross objection is barred by limitation. The assessee has requested for condonation of delay

DCIT CEN CIR 1(3), MUMBAI vs. STUDIO AESTHETIC HEALTH & HOSPITALITY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are allowed and the cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Studio Aethetic Health & Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 No.1, Home Worth, 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Studio Aethetic Health & Hospitality Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ No.1, Home Worth, Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman : Shri Naresh Kumar With Assessee By Shri Yogesh Joijode सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.09.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Emanating Out Of The Respective Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since The Issues Are Identical & The Appeals Were Heard Together, These Are Being Consolidated & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153D

153D the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax. 4. As regards the cross objection, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing the cross objection for assessment year 2011-12. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. It is noted that there is a delay of filing the cross objection

MR VIJAY MADAN VARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2333/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 54

delay is condoned. 4. In both the years apart from the grounds raised on merits, has also taken legal grounds which reads as under:- “Additional Ground Number 1:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the assessment order without providing Copy of certificate duly signed by the Investigating

MR VIJAY MADAN VARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2334/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 54

delay is condoned. 4. In both the years apart from the grounds raised on merits, has also taken legal grounds which reads as under:- “Additional Ground Number 1:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the assessment order without providing Copy of certificate duly signed by the Investigating

MANOJ CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2), THANE

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

ITA 384/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manoj Chaturvedi, The Ito – 4(2), 701, Nikhil Heritage, Achole Road, “A” Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Nallasopara (E), Tal: Vasai, Park, Wagle Indl. Estate, Dist: Palghar - 401209 Vs. Road No. 16Z, Pan: Acipc2076Q Thane (W)- 400604

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal (DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 234

153D. 7 In facts .and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in completing Search assessment U/s Assessment Year: 2010-11 143(3) rws 148 on the basis of enclosed document seized from and belonging to the said Maad group but not furnishing the copy of the same to the Appellant. 8 In the facts