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.

101 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 50C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai101Chennai50Hyderabad41Ahmedabad40Pune23Indore19Surat19Kolkata18Delhi18Jaipur16Visakhapatnam15Nagpur13Lucknow13Bangalore10Rajkot6Patna6Jabalpur5Agra4Chandigarh2Varanasi2Raipur1Cuttack1Allahabad1Cochin1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 50C69Addition to Income47Penalty40Section 153A38Section 56(2)(x)30Section 143(3)29Capital Gains27Section 13226Condonation of Delay

AMARJIT KAUR RANJIT SINGH ANAND,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24(1), 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 4377/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik JainFor Respondent: 30/09/2025
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

condonation of delay, particularly where no mala fides or deliberate inaction is at fides or deliberate inaction is attributable to the litigant and tributable to the litigant and substantial justice is at stake. In the facts of the present case, the substantial justice is at stake. In the facts of the present case, the substantial justice is at stake

RESHMA MOHAMMED ASIM ANSARI,BANDRA EAST vs. ITO-23(3)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

26
Long Term Capital Gains25
Section 25024
Limitation/Time-bar22

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

ITA 2551/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Ito-23(3)(1), Room No. 402, Mina Centre Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Building, Ahmed Zakaria Nagar, Mumbai-400012. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ardpa 8448 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ravindra Poojary, Adv
Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

50C of the act. Therefore the working of the capital gain by the A.O is bad in law. capital gain by the A.O is bad in law. III. Disallowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/ allowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/ allowance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785/- 4) That

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8111/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

Section 143(2)Section 45Section 48Section 50Section 50CSection 54

section 50C should be deleted and the exemption of Capital Gain claimed by the Appellant u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, may be accepted and the Assessing Officer may be directed to modify his assessment accordingly.” 3 Mohd Raza Adberali 2. In this case it has been noted that the appeal has been filed late before the Tribunal

JAGMEET SINGH SABHARWAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

50C the Ld. AO ought to have accepted the explanation that difference is less than 2% and the value shown is true and fair market value.”\n3. At the outset, it was notice that the instant appeal is delayed by 272 days. In an affidavit filed, it is stated by the assessee that he did not get the appeal order

GAURAV RAJESH DESAI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

condone the delay of 411 days in filing the appeal before us and admit the appeal for further adjudication. 7. On merits, the ld. AR during the course of hearing primarily made submissions with regard to the valuation of the DVO being not correct. In this regard the ld. AR submitted that the impugned land consisting of 2 plots

SMT MOHINI BHARAT KUMAR LUDHANI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE. DELHI, MUMBAI

ITA 1868/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

delay of\n2 days in filing the appeal cause on account of health issues faced by\nthe Appellant is condoned.\nAccordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits taking\ninto the consideration the revised grounds of appeal filed by the\nAppellant vide letter dated 12/01/2023 which read as under:\n“1.\nThe learned CIT(A) erred in confirming

JAYANTILAL UMASHANKAR CHAVJI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4433/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 80T

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the only issue raised by the assessee is on account of the addition made under section 56 (2) (x) of the act being the difference between the agreement value and the stamp value. 7.1. The Ld.AR submitted that

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. \nSr. No. | ITA No. | Assessment \nyear | Appeal by | No. of days \ndelay \n---|---|---|---|---\n1. | 2980/Mum/2024

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2866/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

SPYKAR LIFESTYLES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of

ITA 7000/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

50C(2) by referring the valuation of the property to a valuation officer. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter and to amend above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. In ITA No. 7001/M/2016, the appeal against the confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) the assessee has raised following grounds

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5010/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kadam, Sr.DR
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on the merits. 4. In this appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds: – “Ground No.1 Incorrect year of assessment 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['Hon'ble CIT(A)] has erred in upholding the addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(2), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1537/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

delay in filing of cross objection is condoned and the matter is allowed for hearing and adjudication on merits of the case. 15. Ground nos. 1 & 2 with their sub-grounds are interrelated and hence taken up together for adjudication. During the assessment proceedings the AO pointed out that 3 flats were sold below the value declared by the stamp

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFAC , DELHI

ITA 1892/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

condonation of delay is placed on record.\nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to\n8\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21\ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the\nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2047/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication