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.

462 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 32(1)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai462Chennai454Delhi362Kolkata301Bangalore180Hyderabad171Karnataka146Ahmedabad131Chandigarh115Jaipur110Nagpur102Raipur85Pune73Amritsar72Surat56Panaji56Calcutta39Rajkot36Cuttack35Lucknow32Indore31SC30Visakhapatnam17Cochin15Telangana12Guwahati11Varanasi10Patna9Allahabad8Rajasthan4Jodhpur3Himachal Pradesh3Orissa3Dehradun3Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 14A43Section 143(3)41Addition to Income40Disallowance29Condonation of Delay26Section 14824Penalty23Section 6822Deduction

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2714/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sandip S. Nagar, &For Respondent: 24/07/2024
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. has to strictly and literally comply with

Showing 1–20 of 462 · Page 1 of 24

...
21
Limitation/Time-bar21
Section 25017
Section 143(1)16

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 6681/MUM/2018[1999-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 1999-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

Section 154Section 32Section 43(1)

condone the said delay. 4. Since the issues are common and connected, the appeals were heard together. These are being consolidated and hence disposed of together by this common order. 5. We note that for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2009-10 (except assessment year 2007-08) are appeals which were already adjudicated by the Tribunal vide order dated

DCIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3415/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav

condone the delay of 85 days and admit the cross objection for hearing on merit. 5. Grounds no.(i) to (iii) of Revenue’s appeal corresponding to the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objection relate to the deduction claimed by the assessee on expenditure incurred on construction of Mumbra bypass road on BOT basis. 6. Brief facts

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)

32, except clause (iia) of subsection (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. 21 Getinge Medical India Private Limited (3) The loss and depreciation referred to in clause (ii) and clause (iii) of sub- section (2) shall be deemed to have been given full effect to and no further deduction for such loss

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3189/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32. Accordingly, he upheld the action of 10 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd the AO that the claim of depreciation on the entire amount cannot be allowed @ 25%. However, he accepted the assessee’s other contention that depreciation should

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2546/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32. Accordingly, he upheld the action of 10 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd the AO that the claim of depreciation on the entire amount cannot be allowed @ 25%. However, he accepted the assessee’s other contention that depreciation should

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4216/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32. Accordingly, he upheld the action of 10 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd the AO that the claim of depreciation on the entire amount cannot be allowed @ 25%. However, he accepted the assessee’s other contention that depreciation should

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3191/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32. Accordingly, he upheld the action of 10 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd the AO that the claim of depreciation on the entire amount cannot be allowed @ 25%. However, he accepted the assessee’s other contention that depreciation should

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD ( FORMELRY TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3732/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32. Accordingly, he upheld the action of 10 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd the AO that the claim of depreciation on the entire amount cannot be allowed @ 25%. However, he accepted the assessee’s other contention that depreciation should

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4215/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32. Accordingly, he upheld the action of 10 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd the AO that the claim of depreciation on the entire amount cannot be allowed @ 25%. However, he accepted the assessee’s other contention that depreciation should

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3190/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32. Accordingly, he upheld the action of 10 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd the AO that the claim of depreciation on the entire amount cannot be allowed @ 25%. However, he accepted the assessee’s other contention that depreciation should

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1780/MUM/2023[2016-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1761/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1781/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1779/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1764/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1762/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1763/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

delay was not intentional and was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The reasons, and therefore say might be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee also did not seriously object for did not seriously object for admission of the appeal admission

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2061/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

ii) specify the data structure, standards and manner of generation of electronic verification code, referred to in sub-rule(3), for purpose of verification of the person furnishing the said Forms; and (iii) be responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate security, archival and retrieval policies in relation to Forms so furnished. ]” 8.10 Thus, as can be seen above, amended Rule