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.

43 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 246A(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi160Chennai66Pune50Mumbai43Bangalore35Indore32Panaji19Kolkata12Patna9Nagpur9Chandigarh9Visakhapatnam7Jaipur7Ahmedabad5Raipur5Hyderabad4Lucknow3Jodhpur2Cuttack2Agra1Jabalpur1Allahabad1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 234E76Section 200A48Section 143(3)36Section 143(1)30TDS23Condonation of Delay21Section 25019Section 15418Section 263

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2826/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Tata Krishna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80J

246A(1)(a) of IT Act. 3. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying the . The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying the . The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) is not justified in denying the opportunity of personal hearing when a specific request was opportunity of personal hearing when a specific request was opportunity

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 24816
Addition to Income15
Deduction14

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4741/MUM/2016[2013-14 (24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. Talreja &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. The Hon’ble High Court further held that

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4742/MUM/2016[2013-14 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. Talreja &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. The Hon’ble High Court further held that

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4740/MUM/2016[2013-14 (24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. Talreja &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. The Hon’ble High Court further held that

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4744/MUM/2016[2013-14 (24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

ITA 3075/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 36(1)

c) of the Act against the order dated 30 March 2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of income-Tax, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned PCIT') under section 263 of the Act on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3015/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

c) of the Act against the order dated 30 March 2024 passed\nby the Principal Commissioner of income-Tax, Mumbai (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the learned PCIT') under section 263 of the Act on the\nfollowing grounds which are independent and without prejudice to\neach other. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe learned PCIT

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Section 143(3)Section 263

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri H P Mahajani with ShriFor Respondent: Shri M.C.Omi Ningshen,DR
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)

c) are mentioned , inter- alia, in Section 246A as one of the orders against which an appeal shall lie with learned CITA(A) vide Section 246A(1)(j)(B).Such an appeal before learned CIT(A) is to be filed in prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner as stipulated u/s 249(1). Section 249(2) prescribes

MR. NARESH TOPANDAS AIDASANI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC,DELHI/ DCIT-27(2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 105/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

delay, though involving some negligence on the part of the staff, was not mala fide and constituted a 'sufficient cause' for condonation, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "250", "249(3)", "246A

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 5140/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

delay was to be condoned, however, upon payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- per appeal. The order, in this regard, was passed by the bench on the same day and the assessee was directed to pay the cost in the specified manner. 2.2 Accordingly, as directed in the order, the appeals were posted for final hearing today. The Ld. Authorized

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1476/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1477/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1478/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1479/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4902/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 3227/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM ITA No. 257/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year 2019-20) AO, National E-Assessment Calibehr Business Support Centre/ ACIT Cir Services Pvt.Ltd. 1(2)(1)Mumbai Ground Floor, Shah National E-Assessment Vs. Industrial Estate, Saki Centre Delhi/ Aayakar Vihar Road, Andheri East, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai-400072 marg, Mumbai

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM ITA No. 257/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year 2019-20) AO, National E-Assessment Calibehr Business Support Centre/ ACIT Cir Services Pvt.Ltd. 1(2)(1)Mumbai Ground Floor, Shah National E-Assessment Vs. Industrial Estate, Saki Centre Delhi/ Aayakar Vihar Road, Andheri East, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai-400072 marg, Mumbai

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 256/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM ITA No. 257/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year 2019-20) AO, National E-Assessment Calibehr Business Support Centre/ ACIT Cir Services Pvt.Ltd. 1(2)(1)Mumbai Ground Floor, Shah National E-Assessment Vs. Industrial Estate, Saki Centre Delhi/ Aayakar Vihar Road, Andheri East, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai-400072 marg, Mumbai

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 955/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: S/s. Jitendra Jain, Gopal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

C I T - 2(1) 3rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 PAN – AAACA4832D Appellant Respondent Appellant by: S/s. Jitendra Jain, Gopal Sharma & Akram Khan Respondent by: Shri Satishchandra Rajore Date of Hearing: 27.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha