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 65Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi17Hyderabad8Chandigarh7Chennai7Kerala4Mumbai4Bangalore3Indore2SC2Jaipur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)9Addition to Income4Section 2503Section 363Section 143(1)(a)3Section 143(1)3Section 1433Disallowance3

MRS MAMTA SHARAD GUPTA,THANE vs. THE ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1553/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Phadke, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kanhiya Lal Kanak, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and aforesaid appeal is ordered to be registered. 6. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower 4 Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances

MARKOLINES INFRA PVT LTD.,BELAPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1170/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

condoned.\n7.\nThe primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned\ndisallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made vide intimation issued u/s\n143(1) of the Act without giving prior intimation to the assessee about the\naforesaid adjustment and therefore the opportunity of raising objection against\nthe proposed adjustment was not granted to the assessee. Accordingly

ACIT-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MARKOLINES INFRA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2967/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

condoned.\n7.\nThe primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned\ndisallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made vide intimation issued u/s\n143(1) of the Act without giving prior intimation to the assessee about the\naforesaid adjustment and therefore the opportunity of raising objection against\nthe proposed adjustment was not granted to the assessee. Accordingly

MARKOLINES INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 15(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

condoned. 7. The primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made vide intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act without giving prior intimation to the assessee about the aforesaid adjustment and therefore the opportunity of raising objection against the proposed adjustment was not granted to the assessee. Accordingly