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.

99 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 269clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka101Mumbai99Chennai68Delhi59Bangalore58Kolkata46Jaipur29Cuttack27Lucknow17Hyderabad17Pune12Ahmedabad10Amritsar10Indore8Varanasi8Raipur8Chandigarh8Nagpur7Surat7Allahabad6Calcutta5Guwahati5Patna2SC2Cochin1Rajasthan1Visakhapatnam1Jodhpur1Telangana1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Penalty37Addition to Income30Condonation of Delay27Section 1123Section 14421Section 143(1)20Section 25019Section 143(3)19Section 271A

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld
Section 2(24)

269) 9 M/s Sangam India Limited Assessment Year: 2015-16 (viii) Mumbai Tribunal in Earthmetal Electricals (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2005; 4 SOT 484) (ix) Mumbai Tribunal in Anand Kumar Jain V/s ITO (ITA No.4192/Mum/2012 dated 20/08/2019) (x) Mumbai Tribunal in National Bank for Agricultural & Rural Development V/s Addl. CIT (ITA No.5310/Mum/2019 dated 30/08/2019

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

18
Section 271B18
Disallowance18
Section 143(2)14

LOKUMAL KISHINCHAND CHARITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1267/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 44A

delay may be condoned and assessing officer may be directed to allow benefit of section 11 to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj HC),  Social Security Scheme of GICEA vs. CIT(E) (2023) 147 taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 3374/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

condoning delay in filing appeal. The facts of the matter are that The facts of the matter are that a senior counsel, KB. a senior counsel, KB. Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1181/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

condoning delay in filing appeal. The facts of the matter are that The facts of the matter are that a senior counsel, KB. a senior counsel, KB. Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal in the Hifazat Ali, advised the defendants to present their appeal

SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA,THANE vs. WARD 3(2) THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5824/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 269Section 271DSection 27I

section 269 SS of the I T Act 1961 without considering the facts, circumstances of the case and expediency of the transaction. 2 I.T.A. No. 5824/Mum/2025 5. That the learned assessing officer has erred in law and not justified in proceeding with the assessment without giving proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard in this matter and the principles

EVEREST GRANDE COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CPC ITO,24 (1) (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2487/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & S Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2487/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Everest Grande Commercial बिधम/ Cpc/Ito-24(1)(1) 3Rd Floor, Piramal Premises Vs. Cts-46/34, Plot 3A Everest Chambers Lalbaugh, Grande Society, Mahakali Mumbai-400034. Caves Road, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaae5455A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Kukreja Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 19.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Admitting The Same On Grounds Of Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh KukrejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

269) had also inter alia observed that, looking at the amount of tax involved in that case, that the High Court ought to have to 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Everest Grande Commercial Premises Co-op Soc. Ltd decided the matter on the merits, rather than disposing of cases merely on the ground of delay. 8. It is trite

FOUR OCEANS PUBLISHERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 4466/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh Four Oceans Publishers P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3) C/O. Strand Book Stall Room No. 531A, 5Th Floor Dhannur Ground Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sir P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacf4958M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

269 (SC) 2.3 Per contra, the learned D.R. opposed the condonation of delay. 2.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions on the issue of condonatoin of delay of 728 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 and perused and carefully considered the material on record. At the outset we observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court

SANGEETA JAGDISH KENY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2097/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(iv)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50CSection 54

delay in the instant appeal deserves to be condoned. I hold so. 10. At the time of hearing, both the parties had addressed the dispute on merits also. The substantive grievance of the assessee is against the decision of the CIT(A) sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer adopting the full value of consideration at Rs.33

MISC BERHAD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 44B

269 (Supreme Court) 8. In view of the above factual and legal petition, it is humbly submitted that a liberal approach be adopted by your Honours as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 8 ITA.No.574/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2008-09) MISC Berhad citations referred above, in exercising the powers conferred on your Honours under section

SEA FACE PARK CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5417/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22 Sea Face Park Co. Ito Ward 19(3)(1) Operative Housing Piramal Chambers Society Limited Mumbai- 400012. 50, Bhulabhai Desai Vs. Road, Maharashtra- 400026. Pan: Aaaas3577R Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

269 (SC). j) M/s. Space Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 1072 to 1074/Bang/2023 vide order dated 31/01/2024 Sea Face Park Co. Operative Housing Society Limited; A. Y.2021-22 3.2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2021-22 before this Tribunal

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

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ignored the fact that there was no reason to belief that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible

M/S.BLAST CARBOBLOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1818/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

delay in filing of present appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal may be decided accordingly. 2 ITA 1818 & 1819/Mum/2018 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT [A] has erred in confirming the disallowance of 20% of so- called bogus purchases.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

R.C SCHOOL OF ST. TERESAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2512/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 254(1)

delay in filing Form-10B, may be condoned and assessing officer may be directed to allow benefit of section 11 to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj HC),  Social Security Scheme of GICEA

R.C.CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPHS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1268/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 254(1)

delay in filing Form-10B, may be condoned and assessing officer may be directed to allow benefit of section 11 to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj HC),  Social Security Scheme of GICEA

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

SANTOSH MORE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1) MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3203/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh More Income Tax Officer Room No.6/14, Hirji 20(3)(1) Bhojraj Chawl, Room No. 621, Kalachowki S.O., 6Th Floor, Ambi Khalasa, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033. Lalbaug, Pan:Aotpm3679Q Mumbai- 400012. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rayan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. A.R
Section 69A

269 (SC). j) M/s. Space Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 1072 to 1074/Bang/2023 vide order dated 31/01/2024 2.3. On the contrary the Ld.DR though objected the delay to be condoned could not controvert the submissions of the Ld.AR. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before

ALPHA CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 455/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms.Padmavathy Salpha Charitable Trust, Commissioner Of Income H. No.453, Ghosar Wadi, Tax (Exemption), Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, Income Bhandar Aali, Bhuigaon-West, Vs. Bhuigaon Bk, Bhuigaon B.O, Tax Office, Pmt Building, Thane. Shankar Seth Road, Pan – Aaita4259M Pune-411037. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke (Virtually Appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 12A

condonation of delay, which is supported by the affidavit of Amis Michael Lopes, Managing-Trustee of the Assessee. In the application, the appellant /assessee submitted that they were incorporated in the year 2021 and are not very well aware about Income Tax procedure and compliances. The application of the Assessee for registration u/s 12AB was rejected by ld CIT(Exemption

CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4998/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

section 11 be allowed to the assessee. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that in A.Y. 2023-24, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay 29 days before ld. CIT(E), however he refused to condone the delay. However, on filing Writ Petition (W.P.) before Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, such delay in filing Form

CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4999/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

section 11 be allowed to the assessee. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that in A.Y. 2023-24, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay 29 days before ld. CIT(E), however he refused to condone the delay. However, on filing Writ Petition (W.P.) before Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, such delay in filing Form