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.

16 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 53Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Raipur38Bangalore23Chennai17Mumbai16Patna7Kolkata7Delhi5Hyderabad5Pune3Visakhapatnam2Indore2SC2Chandigarh1Calcutta1Ahmedabad1Telangana1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A28Addition to Income16Section 132(1)14Section 14711Unexplained Cash Credit7Cash Deposit7Search & Seizure7Section 53A6Section 263

SANJAY BABAN VAITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3399/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

53A of the Transfer of Property Act were not fulfilled. not fulfilled. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not considering

6
Section 50C5
Section 143(2)5
Section 2(47)(v)3

JAIDEV VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, he held appeal of the assessee as liable to be dismissed

ITA 6626/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 43CSection 50CSection 53A

53A of TOPA; transfer is accordingly effected in FY 2011-12. (b) No provision at relevant time to attract stamp duty value Without prejudice, the ld. AO failed to appreciate that at the relevant time (ie AY 2012-13) there was no provision in the Act for deeming the consideration received on sale of stock-in- trade (ie asset other

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

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4385/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4387/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4386/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4384/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4383/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4382/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

AARTI SANJAY KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), KALYAN

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

ITA 1190/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.K. Aggarwalmrs. Aarti Sanjay Kadam Income Tax Officer-2(1) 163, Anand Smruti 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Vs. Midc Road, Katrap Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada Badlapur 421503, Thane Kalyan (W), Thane Pan – Agcpk3781A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 131Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50C

condoned and appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. The only effective ground raised by the assessee is as under: - “[1] The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer determining capital gain.” Subsequently, vide letter dated 16th April, 2018, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds

SUNIL MOTIRAM HULE,THANE vs. ITO 3(3), THANE

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

ITA 4685/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 50C

condone the delay of 39 days and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel has filed voluminous compilation of paper book containing along with a petition for admission of additional evidences as per the Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. In addition, the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal

SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1 , KALYAN

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

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

delay of 458 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted. 6. Coming to the merits, the brief facts are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of ₹97,98,640/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the sale 3 Shree Sai Constructions consideration of immovable property vis-à-vis stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of revision order as under: 1. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 263 and the consequential order are barred by limitation. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the assessees was that the amendments made to the definition of term „owner‟ by Finance Bill, 1987 should be given retrospective effect. It was held that the amendments were retrospective in nature as they rationalise and clear the existing ambiguities and doubts. Reference was made to Crawford: „Statutory Construction

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the assessees was that the amendments made to the definition of term „owner‟ by Finance Bill, 1987 should be given retrospective effect. It was held that the amendments were retrospective in nature as they rationalise and clear the existing ambiguities and doubts. Reference was made to Crawford: „Statutory Construction