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.

150 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 164clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai150Karnataka101Delhi88Chennai88Chandigarh56Bangalore50Kolkata37Cochin31Jaipur30Pune27Visakhapatnam19Hyderabad19Lucknow18Ahmedabad18Patna11Surat8Raipur8Indore7Telangana6Panaji5Jodhpur4Rajkot3Calcutta2SC2Agra2Allahabad2Jabalpur2Cuttack2Rajasthan1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)40Addition to Income40Section 14A37Penalty30Section 115B26Section 14822Condonation of Delay22Section 25018Section 143(1)

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7338/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

164 & 163/Mum/2025 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of around 176 days Such a delay cannot be condoned as condonation around 176 days Such a delay cannot

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7339/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Showing 1–20 of 150 · Page 1 of 8

...
18
Section 80I18
Section 14717
Deduction17
For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

164 & 163/Mum/2025 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of around 176 days Such a delay cannot be condoned as condonation around 176 days Such a delay cannot

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3671/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80J

164 taxmann.com 229 (Madras) also held that where Form 10DA was signed within stipulated date and filed on extended date for filing return of income, it was appropriate case for condoning the delay in filing Form 10DA. We find that Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs G.M Knitting Industries (P) Ltd (supra) also held that when certificate in Form

ZAHIR KASAM MEMON,MUMBAI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay in filing appeal.” B. The Ld.AR submitted that the above grounds are related to the main grounds raised in form 36 and that no new records needs to be looked into for disposing off the issue raised herein. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional

IEI SHAREHOLDING (PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT -1987) TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2222/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito Ward 22(2)(1), Iei Shareholding(Personal Piramal Chambers, Development -1987) Trust, Lalbaugh, Ion House, 4Th Floor, Mumbai-400011. Dr. E Moses Road, Near Famous Studio, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011. Pan/Gir No. Aaati0093D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 164(1)Section 167B

section 164(1) of the Act read with proviso (iv), at the slab rates. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A) has erred in holding the delay in filing of the appeal by the Appellant as 'inordinate' and without 'sufficient cause', and dismissing the appeal without any discussion on merits

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. When the present appeal was called for hearing, neither did anyone appear on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking an adjournment filed. From the perusal of the record, we find that in the previous six hearings also no one appeared on behalf

PRIYA SUDHIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER-CIRCLE 22(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2291/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 51Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 164 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal

VASHISHTHA LUXURY FASHION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTER, BENGALURU,

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

ITA 1665/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

condone the delay in filing the form belatedly, provided the assessee has not faulted in filing the return of income on time. Therefore, we deem it fit to hold that the CBDT circular dated 18.11.2024 is in any way not applicable in assessee’s case. 15. Having held so, the next issue for consideration is whether the assessee can claim

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 169/MUM/2022[2014-15 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

M/S. BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, MUMBAI

ITA 165/MUM/2022[2013-14 QUQRTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 166/MUM/2022[2013-14 QUARTER 3 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 171/MUM/2022[2014-15 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC., GHAZIABAD

ITA 174/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 170/MUM/2022[2014-15 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, MUMBAI

ITA 167/MUM/2022[2013-14 QUARTER 4]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 172/MUM/2022[2014-15 QUARTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 168/MUM/2022[2013-14 QUARTER 4]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 173/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 200ASection 234E

164, 165, 166, 167 & 168/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITA Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

164. 16. The alternate contention of assessee was that the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied to the appellant since the share of profit received by the appellant from such integrated joint venture AOP is chargeable to tax in terms of provisions of section 167B r.w.s. 86 of the Act. A further without prejudice submission is that the company

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

164. 16. The alternate contention of assessee was that the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied to the appellant since the share of profit received by the appellant from such integrated joint venture AOP is chargeable to tax in terms of provisions of section 167B r.w.s. 86 of the Act. A further without prejudice submission is that the company