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.

53 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 221clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai185Karnataka105Delhi72Mumbai53Kolkata35Bangalore31Pune29Jaipur27Cochin26Hyderabad24Ahmedabad17Lucknow17Surat14Chandigarh9Cuttack8Indore6Raipur6Guwahati5Visakhapatnam4Allahabad4Amritsar4Calcutta4Rajkot3Agra2SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1Patna1Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)34Addition to Income29Section 26328Section 221(1)26Section 80I21Section 271(1)(c)19Deduction19Section 14718Penalty

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

18
Disallowance15
Section 143(1)14
Section 25013

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2147/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

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

ITA 6320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

221]. 2.4 The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of these provisions [Ramlal

A.C.I.T.-20(2), MUMBAI vs. NIRMAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7265/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Dcit-20(2), Vs M/S Nirman Constructions, 612, Piramal Chambers, 14, Nyay Sagar, Old Nagardas Lalbaug, Road, Near Chinoy College, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacfn8428K

Section 140ASection 140A(3)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 221Section 234B

221 on 9th February 2010 after the completion of the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30th December 2009. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted and stated as under:– “Please refer to your above referred show cause notice dated 9th February 2010 which was received on 11th February 2010. Firstly, we would

ADDL CIT RG 15(1), MUMBAI vs. BHUMIRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8803/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit(Osd), M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Circle-15(1), D/5-6, Big Splash, बनाम/ Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Sector-17, Vs. 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai-400007 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Jcit(Osd), D/5-6, Big Splash, Circle-15(1), बनाम/ Sector-17, Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H

Section 221(1)Section 80I

Section 221(2) of the Act says “where as a result of any final order the amount of tax, with respect to default in the payment of which the penalty was levied, has been wholly reduced the penalty levied 20 ITA Nos 8803, 8750-2011, ITA No 1445-2012 & CO-60-2013 M/s Bhumiraj Construction shall be canceled

VINAY VIKRAM OBEROI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)4, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7157/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vinay Vikram Oberoi Income Tax Officer-22(3)-4 22, Punit Chambers Tower 6, 3Rd Floor Plot 769-C, Sector 18 Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex Turbhe, Vashi Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan - Aaapo2816L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 221(1)

221(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The undersigned requests your goodself to grant stay to avoid undue hardship. Kindly condone any delay (if any) which may have been cause at our end. The undersigned or his representative shall attend each dates as provided by the Hon'ble Authority to ensure quick disposal of the case filed before your

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1116/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

221 Ward 1, Panvel, Mumbai NAD 232 New Panvel Raigad Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) PIN code 410 206 PAN : AJNPR9796E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR Date of hearing : 23/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 25/ 07/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeals of the same assessee were filed against

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1117/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

221 Ward 1, Panvel, Mumbai NAD 232 New Panvel Raigad Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) PIN code 410 206 PAN : AJNPR9796E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR Date of hearing : 23/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 25/ 07/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeals of the same assessee were filed against

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

221 A harmonious reading of the provision in its entirety would lead to the conclusion that the deduction is available to an enterprise which (i) develops; or(ii) operates and maintains; or (iii) develops, maintains and operates that infrastructure facility. However, the commencement of the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should be after

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

221 A harmonious reading of the provision in its entirety would lead to the conclusion that the deduction is available to an enterprise which (i) develops; or(ii) operates and maintains; or (iii) develops, maintains and operates that infrastructure facility. However, the commencement of the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should be after

HATHWAY C NET P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4112/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hathway C-Net Private The Tax Recovery Officer Limited, Rahejas, 4Th Floor, (Tds)-1 Smt. K.G. Mittal बिधम/ Corners Of Main Avenue & Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. V.P. Road, Santa Cruz (West) Charni Road-(West), Mumbai- 400054 Mumbai-400 002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaach8338K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

condone the delay of 658 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 9. We shall now advert to the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short P a g e | 11 ITA No. 4112/Mum/2016 AY: 2003-04 Hathway C-Net Private Ltd. Vs. TRO (TDS) „A.R‟) for the assessee

M/S. G M FABRICS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -9(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1095/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S G.M. Fabrics P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Ground Floor, -9(3)(2) Dhana Singh Compound, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jb Nagar, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach 2821 F

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)Section 234B

221 and Section 140A of the Act. She submitted that the penalty could be levied only if the return is filed under Section 139 of the Act and assessee has not paid any tax due thereon. It was stated that when the return of income itself has been held as invalid, on such invalid return self assessment

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. PRASHANT R. SAMDANI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by Revenue, and the C

ITA 1921/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Pradip N. Kapasi (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.S.Kemwal (DR)
Section 140A(3)Section 221(1)Section 253

section 140A(3) of the Act. The AO directed the assessee to make the payment of self-assessment tax vide notice dated 09.11.2012. Along with the direction for self- assessment tax, a show-cause notice u/s 221(1) was also issued asking the assessee as to why penalty should not be levied. The assessee contested the proceedings and filed

SANTOSH RAJU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1757/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

section 263 of the Act. 4. I state that in the interest of justice the Petitioner's condonation Petition may be allowed and the appeal be decided on merits. Otherwise grave and irreparable damage shall be caused to the Petitioner. 5. I state that whatever is stated herein above is true to the best of any knowledge and I believe

SARANGA ANIL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1654/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Section 68

Section 68. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of interest income of 1,72,51,247 without appreciating the fact that the said interest income was reduced 3 Saranga Anil Aggarwal A.Y. 2018-19 from the corresponding interest expenditure and only the net amount

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3635/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

Section 191Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

condoned the delay. 4. Now, coming to issue No. 1&2 in which the assessee took the plea of limitation. It is the argument of the representative of the assessee that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.9.2003, which was served upon the assessee on 24.9.2003 and the proceedings

DHANANJAY SANJIV RAWAL ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhananjay Rawal, ARFor Respondent: 11.02.2025
Section 143(1)

condone the delay of 583 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee submitted that the entire income received from the parties who have deducted the impugned tax has already been offered as income while filing the return and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim credit for the tax deducted there from

RP PANCHAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-31(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2599/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Tisha Bagh a/w. Mr. Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Delay condoned. RP Panchal (HUF) 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 03.09.2024 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

delay, submitted that under section 253 of the Income tax Act, the limitation is provided only for the purpose of filing of appeal and additional grounds can be filed thereafter at any time. He placed his reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (263 ITR 317), Madad All vs. DCIT