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.

181 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(6)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai187Mumbai181Karnataka139Delhi132Ahmedabad119Kolkata113Jaipur76Bangalore67Indore61Lucknow55Surat53Pune45Chandigarh40Raipur35Panaji27Cuttack26Hyderabad25Allahabad24Cochin18Rajkot16Varanasi15Jodhpur12Patna12Guwahati10Nagpur9Ranchi9Amritsar8Jabalpur7SC4Visakhapatnam3Agra3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)62Addition to Income55Section 26349Section 271(1)(c)41Condonation of Delay37Section 14730Section 25029Penalty29Limitation/Time-bar

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)

6. The relevant facts, in so far as they bear upon the controversy, The relevant facts, in so far as they bear upon the controversy, The relevant facts, in so far as they bear upon the controversy, are that an assessment under section 144 of the Act n assessment under section 144 of the Act n assessment under section

Showing 1–20 of 181 · Page 1 of 10

...
23
Section 143(2)19
Section 253(3)18
Natural Justice18

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)

6. The relevant facts, in so far as they bear upon the controversy, The relevant facts, in so far as they bear upon the controversy, The relevant facts, in so far as they bear upon the controversy, are that an assessment under section 144 of the Act n assessment under section 144 of the Act n assessment under section

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)

6. Vehemently opposing condonation of delay, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee is a habitual defaulter which is evident from the fact that before the Commissioner (Appeals) also quantum as well as penalty appeals were filed belatedly. Further, referring to the affidavits filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal explaining the cause of delay, the learned Departmental

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)

c)]. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the amended provisions of section 11(2)(a) of the Act held that the appellant has not fulfilled the pre-condition to file the requisite report within the prescribed due date mentioned u/s. 13(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) at paragraph 5.4.3 also held that the appellant has informed

UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7651/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10Section 250

C) No.3 of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, decisions in cases of; Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471 SC); and Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust Vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITA No.5673/M/2025 dated 26.11.2025. In view of the above, the Ld. AR requested that the delay may be condoned

UTTAR BAHRTIIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10Section 250

C) No.3 of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, decisions in cases of; Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471 SC); and Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust Vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITA No.5673/M/2025 dated 26.11.2025. In view of the above, the Ld. AR requested that the delay may be condoned

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2138/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

condoning the delay, we admit the cross objection for adjudication on merit. 6. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a co-operative bank registered with the Government of Maharashtra. As stated by the assessing officer, the assessee is engaged in banking operation as per framework of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India

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

6 Sprigtime Clubs&Hospitality Services P. Ltd. such period as may be prescribed, which is to be delivered to the prescribed authority, in such form and verified and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. The said statement is to be delivered within such time as may be prescribed. 18. Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules

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

6. In view of the above submissions order U/s 200A of the Act imposing late fees U/s 234E has to be cancelled and quashed. 7. The department vide its press release dated 12th May 2016 made know that 'The Income Declaration Scheme 2016 & The Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme 2016' ("Scheme" for short) came into force with effect from

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

6. In view of the above submissions order U/s 200A of the Act imposing late fees U/s 234E has to be cancelled and quashed. 7. The department vide its press release dated 12th May 2016 made know that 'The Income Declaration Scheme 2016 & The Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme 2016' ("Scheme" for short) came into force with effect from

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

6. In view of the above submissions order U/s 200A of the Act imposing late fees U/s 234E has to be cancelled and quashed. 7. The department vide its press release dated 12th May 2016 made know that 'The Income Declaration Scheme 2016 & The Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme 2016' ("Scheme" for short) came into force with effect from

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2354/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

c –“Date of service or communication of the order – “It was mentioned as 19.01.2018”. The revenue having accepted the date of service of the CIT(A) order has challenged by appeal before the Honble Tribunal and therefore the explanations and reasons for delay should be subsequent to this date and to any prior period. 8. Further the Ld.DR submitted that

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3738/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

253(5), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 348/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court No.2)

For Respondent: Shri Bomi Daruwala with
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)Section 92C

condonation of delay raised another objection that the appeal of revenue is not maintainable and submitted that sub-section (2A) of section 253 was inserted by Finance Act 2014 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2013, however, the same was omitted by Finance Act 2016 from 01.06.2016. It was argued that, the sub-section (2A) was omitted from the statue

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

C. Naresh, opposed the condonation of delay by contending that the Revenue is expected to explain the delay of each day. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, so far as, condonation of delay is concerned, no doubt filing of an appeal/cross

WORTHWHILE FUTURE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM. WARD 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4189/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nirav ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 253Section 253(5)Section 80G

C. Beaumonde, Ward- 2(4)), Marathe Marg, Mumbai- 400020 Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AACCW 8528L Appellant by : Shri Nirav Shah, Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned appeals by the assessee arise

WORTHWHILE FUTURE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4190/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nirav ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 253Section 253(5)Section 80G

C. Beaumonde, Ward- 2(4)), Marathe Marg, Mumbai- 400020 Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AACCW 8528L Appellant by : Shri Nirav Shah, Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned appeals by the assessee arise

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (EARLIER REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT 1860 AS ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA CONVERTED INTO COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 4425/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)

c) The power to condone the delay has not been given to Appellate Authorities, or enshrined in section 246 or 246 A or 253. Other than Section 119(2)(b), there is no other provision given to any other appellate authority to entertain such appeal or condone the delay. d) Once Section 119 of the Act has conferred power upon

JANSEVA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSHTHA MARYADIT,MAHIM vs. ITO 22(1)(6), LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5752/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChhachedFor Respondent: 12/11/2025
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

253(5) of the Act, the assessee has to justify the delay in filing the appeal by way of application supported by the affidavit. While examining the issue of the condonation of the delay, the Tribunal is required to examine the acceptability of the explanation of the ‘sufficient cause’ submitted by the assessee. The law on condonation of delay

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3787/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, DR
Section 14ASection 253(4)

condone the said delay and admit the CO for hearing and adjudication. 3.1 At the outset, the learned D.R. for Revenue raised the objection that since Revenue‟s appeal in ITA No. 434/Mum/2011 had been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 15.02.2016 the assessee‟s CO is not maintainable as it did not survive and should be dismissed