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.

280 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai280Chennai214Indore167Delhi165Ahmedabad156Karnataka139Kolkata130Jaipur124Surat115Lucknow105Bangalore97Chandigarh57Cochin45Pune41Cuttack40Panaji39Hyderabad32Allahabad31Rajkot29Nagpur25Patna24Jabalpur21Varanasi19Jodhpur18Visakhapatnam17Raipur14Guwahati11Ranchi9Amritsar6SC4Telangana2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)58Addition to Income55Section 25043Condonation of Delay39Section 14737Section 26337Limitation/Time-bar28Section 14824Section 253(3)

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4384/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

1)(c) of the Act, which the assessee filed on 22.02.2024 which the assessee filed on 22.02.2024 and therefore according to ld. counsel for the assessee the delay of e according to ld. counsel for the assessee the delay of e according to ld. counsel for the assessee the delay of 2673 days in filing the present appeal

Showing 1–20 of 280 · Page 1 of 14

...
23
Disallowance20
Section 25318
Penalty18

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4383/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

1)(c) of the Act, which the assessee filed on 22.02.2024 which the assessee filed on 22.02.2024 and therefore according to ld. counsel for the assessee the delay of e according to ld. counsel for the assessee the delay of e according to ld. counsel for the assessee the delay of 2673 days in filing the present 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)

D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee against two separate orders pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020 passed by ITA No.3015 & 3075/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2019-2020 the first appellate authority. Since identical grounds were raised in all the three appeals, the same were heard together, and are, therefore, being disposed

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1360/MUM/2016[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

Section 244ASection 51

1), M/s State Bank of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAACS8577K राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri M. Swamy-DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee

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)

section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) That delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and that there is has been a minor delay, due to the time taken for selecting and appointing an Authorized Representative. 9) That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 5242/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri R.C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PERSAKTIJITDEY, J.M. This is a group of six appeals, all by the assessee, challenging separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–17, Mumbai, pertaining to assessment years 2007–08, 2008–09 and 2010–11. 2. In this group there are three quantum appeals and rest three appeals arise out of penalty orders passed under section

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

FRANSALIAN SOCIETY NALLASOPARA,VASAI THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD - 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 380/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(2)(c)Section 119(2)(b)Section 13(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The issue to be decided in the above captioned appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for accumulation of funds in term of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short) when Form 10 was filed alongwith revised return of income under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

ITA 5073/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai-CIT-DR
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80H

D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Mumbai, dated 15/05/2017 and pertains to AY 2005-06, wherein, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the same was filed beyond the prescribed period

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4833/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4831/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4828/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4830/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4834/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4829/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4832/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 147Section 148

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: There are total eight (8) appeals preferred by the Revenue which are against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-08, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. W. Financial”) dated 26.04.2016 for AY. 2007-08, AY. 2008-09 & AY. 2009-10; and against

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

d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 20. As per newly

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

d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 20. As per newly

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

d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 20. As per newly