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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 276Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Patna6Mumbai4Ahmedabad3Pune3Indore2Hyderabad2Delhi2SC1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)5Section 253(3)5Section 143(3)4Penalty4Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 115J2Section 276C2

EUREKA OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE (1), THANE

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

ITA 2845/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughule
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

Delay condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of call centre and had filed its return of income dated 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of Rs.21,07,072/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS for verifying “high ratio of refund to TDS, certificate

Depreciation2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Condonation of Delay2

NAZIMA A KAZI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1408/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1408/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बिाम/ Nazima A Kazi, Jcit Rg 22(3) Flat No. B-1304, Plot -12, Navi Mumbai 400705 Shailesh Towers Chs, V. Sector 19A, Navi Mumbai-400706 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Alqpk5996E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. B.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma Rao

For Appellant: Shri. B.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma RaoFor Respondent: Shri. S.K. Mitra , DR
Section 253(3)Section 271DSection 276C

276C which led her to appoint new tax-counsels to properly and effectively represent her before the appropriate authorities. The said prosecution proceedings is stated to have been dropped by Revenue. On coming to know of the default/lapse committed by her erstwhile CA of not filing an appeal before tribunal against appellate order dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3488/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2005-06
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

condone the delay of three\ndays in filing the cross objection and admit the same for\nadjudication.\n4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee had filed\nreturn of income on 31.10.2005 declaring total income at\nRs.43,80,32,246/- under the normal provisions of the Act and\nRs.1,98,56,14,437/- u/s 115JB

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MICRO PLANTAE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2925/MUM/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, CA a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

276C(2) of the Act against the assessee and its directors for the A.Y. 2004-05 in the court of Learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's 38th Court at Billard Pier, Mumbai (Criminal Case No. 958/SW/18) for willful attempts to evade payment of tax arrears hence it was found that the case falls under exception provided in para