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.

71 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 378clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka103Delhi94Mumbai71Chennai70Kolkata47Bangalore41Calcutta37Jaipur36Hyderabad35Ahmedabad22Rajkot18Indore16Pune13Lucknow13Cuttack11Amritsar9Visakhapatnam8Varanasi6Chandigarh5Jodhpur5Allahabad5Surat3Telangana3Cochin2SC2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)50Section 14A37Disallowance29Section 143(1)23Addition to Income23Section 25020Deduction19Section 143(2)16Condonation of Delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA-RBO II THANE WESTERN BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2765/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

14
Limitation/Time-bar14
TDS13
Section 80G12

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3112/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3089/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2764/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA- NRI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2744/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3088/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3087/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2),, MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3086/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA-ISB BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 355/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3111/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant delay in filing of appeal of 249 days to the Appellant without appreciating without appreciating the facts of the case the facts of the case the facts of the case. the case. Opportunity of being heard

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4213/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4210/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2764/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

SHRI LABDHI VIKRAM SHASHAN TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. THE LD AO-ASSISTANT DIRETOR OF INCOME TAX AT CENTRLAIZED PROCESSING CENTRE-CPC, MUMBAI

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

ITA 41/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Labdhi Vikram Shashan Trust 2, Ashok Bhavan, Liberty Garden, Road No. 3, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 Pan: Aaatl1998A ...... Appellant Vs. The Ld. A. O. Assistant Director Of Income Tax-Cpc Bangalore, Karnataka-560 100 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 10BSection 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

section 12A(1)(b) read with 1st proviso to Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 4. For assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Board has issued a circular vide F No. 197/55/2018-ITA-I in Circular No. 7/2018 and F. No. 197/55/2018-ITA-I in Circular No. 30/2019 dated 17.12.2019 and delegated the powers

MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC -8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals for 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 &

ITA 2938/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

378 ITR 84 (Bom.) The Bombay High Court decision is confirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society Civil Appeal No. 11080 of 2017 dt. 29/8/2017. (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC) vi) Skylark Build vs. ACIT (2018) 97 taxmann.com 682 (Mum.)(Trib.) 8. Thirdly, the ld counsel stated further that, in terms of the provisions

ELCO ARCADE RES AND NON RES. PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposesin above terms

ITA 4481/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanelco Arcade Res & Non Res Ito 23(1)(3), Premisies Co-Operative Society Vs. Piramal Chamber, Ltd. Mumbai – 400 012 Elco Arcade, Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aaaae8544N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shripratik Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Pushkarajbhangepatil, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

delay is no inordinate and the same needs to be Elco Arcade Res and Non Res Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. condoned. We order accordingly. The appeal is admitted for hearing on merit. 7. We have heard Ld. AR and Ld. DR. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the entire income was earned from the deposit of the member

DCIT CEN CIR 8(1), MUMBAI vs. ALLCARGO LOGISTICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4786/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit. Cc -8(1), M/S Allcargo Logistics Ltd. Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Diamond Square, Cst Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ropad, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400098 Pan: Aacca2894D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri with Shri I.M. Contractor
Section 253Section 254(1)

condonation of delay, the delay in filing the Cross Objection by assessee is allowed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a flagship company of M/s Allcargo Group and is engaged in the business of logistic services provider in domestic as well as in international markets. The assessee is a leading “Less than a Container Load

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 10 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. 3.20. Thereafter, vide further order dated 10-9-2014 the cross objection, filed by assessee, was also directed to be listed along with the appeal before the Special Bench for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we first proceed to decide the main