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.

93 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi133Karnataka112Mumbai93Chennai84Bangalore73Kolkata63Calcutta37Ahmedabad28Hyderabad27Rajkot21Jaipur20Pune13Cochin12Indore12Chandigarh11Cuttack10Panaji10Amritsar10Patna7Lucknow6Telangana6SC4Nagpur4Surat4Visakhapatnam3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Orissa2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Rajasthan1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income50Section 143(3)44Disallowance39Section 153A36Section 14832Limitation/Time-bar31Section 14726Section 25025Section 143(1)

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

condonation of delay only) can not make a similar application before Hon'ble Bench. Hence even on this ground, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 6. The current appeal of the assessee is against the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 1443 of the Act, dated 23- 9 Getinge Medical

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 13224
Deduction21
Condonation of Delay19

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3534/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 246ASection 250Section 264Section 264(4)Section 40A(3)

condonation of delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A), therefore, in my view the revision petition for the assessment year under consideration is not maintainable on account of alternative effective remedy of appeal. I do not consider it a fit case for invoking the powers under section 264

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6476/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Ramchandra
Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

section 250 of the Act for the fact that all these years have been very tough for me. all these years have been very tough for me. 16. The emotional turmoil coupled with mental stress and 16. The emotional turmoil coupled with mental stress and 16. The emotional turmoil coupled with mental stress and uncertainty had made it very difficult

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3844/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

KETAN V. SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2498/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2122/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2119/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2120/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2497/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2495/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2123/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2121/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2496/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2494/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2118/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6095-6098/Mum/2009 for AY 2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed by the tribunal

MODY INTERIORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-16 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6709/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Abhishekh JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhele
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty order was issued. 6. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The operative part of the learned CIT(A)’s order by dismissing the assessee’s appeal is reproduced below for better appreciation

CASCADE HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 937/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2003-2004 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Acit- Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Central Circle – 31, Mumbai - 400018 Vs. R. No. 413, Aaykar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacc5768N Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/For Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 234ASection 234B

condoned the delay of 661 days in filing the present appeal and permitted the Ld. counsel to argue the case of the assessee on merits. Vide Ground No.1, the assessee has contended that since the assets under consideration and the consequential income belong to Sh. Harshad S Mehta, the AO ought to have taxed in the hands of Harshad Mehta

SUMITOMO CHEMICAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

ITA 6595/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sumitomo Chemical India The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax- 1(3)(1), 6Th Floor, Moti Mahal, 195, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, J Tata Road, Churchgate, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaecs3750L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Sr. DR CIT)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 249Section 263

condonation of delay and the contents thereof read as under: “Reasons for bona fide delay 11. During the course of the Tribunal hearing against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act one of the member has enquired about filing an appeal before CIT (A) against the order passed u/s 143 (3) read with section

VELVET HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 31 CEN RG -7, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1216/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

delay in filing the appeal are condoned. 7. On merits, the ld. AR submits that he is not pressing Ground of appeal No.1 of the appeal. Considering the contention of the assessee Ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 8. Ground of appeal No.2 relates to disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.1,15,20,783/-. The ld. AR submits