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.

310 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 84clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai460Delhi333Kolkata322Mumbai310Bangalore158Hyderabad153Ahmedabad137Pune135Karnataka127Jaipur121Chandigarh102Surat79Visakhapatnam75Nagpur71Indore50Calcutta41Cuttack37Panaji32Lucknow31Cochin29Raipur26Guwahati23Kerala17Agra17Amritsar17Rajkot17Patna15SC13Jabalpur10Allahabad8Telangana6Ranchi5Rajasthan4Varanasi3Dehradun2Jodhpur2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)67Addition to Income53Section 6837Section 25033Section 14729Section 14A27Disallowance27Condonation of Delay26Section 143(1)

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3738/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

84,50,00,000 for carrying on this assignment. That a dispute developed between this company and me, 4. pursuant to which this company filed a suit no. 2576 of 2011 in the Bombay High Court on 6th September 2011 for recovery of the properties and fixed deposits alleged to have been acquired from the monies advanced to me, Thereafter

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(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 6879/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

Showing 1–20 of 310 · Page 1 of 16

...
23
Section 271(1)(c)22
Section 14822
Penalty21
For Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kureja a/w
Section 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions

SHREE RAJ HOME MAKERS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1280/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shree Raj Home Dcit, Makers, बनाम/ Circle-22(3), 416, Arenja Corner, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vs. Sector-17 Vashi Railway Complex, Vashi-400703 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Abjfs1576P

Section 51Section 69C

condoning the delay of 84 days which is in violation of principle of nature justice. 2. During hearing, Shri Shriram Bajaj, Ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that prima facie the assessee is having a good case in its favour as addition under section

ANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 58/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya , CAFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250

84,12,704/- and also the disallowance made amount of Rs.37,54,222/- being accumulated and set apart for application to object of the assessee trust. Without giving the reasonable opportunity and without issuance of any intimation, the entire adjustment was done under section 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the assessment was framed under section

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2121/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2123/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2119/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2122/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2495/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2498/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2118/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2120/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2494/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2496/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2497/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Darse, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 249(2)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

ACCESS DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 600/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.600/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Office No. 15, Floor- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mezzanine, Laxmidas Mumbai-400020. Khimji Market, 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vitthalwadi, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0551C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2366 Days [I.E, Six (6) Years & 05 Months] In Filing Of This Appeal Before This Tribunal. 3. First Of All Will Deal With The Application Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Manish Panwar For Condonation Of In-Ordinate Delay. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Gold Bullion & Bars. For The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income After Declaring Loss Of Rs. (8,932)/- On 27.09.2012. The Return Of Income Was Initially Processed U/S.143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)

section 154 was served upon him at the old address. That communication had also consumed time. Therefore, the assessee could not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was the result of ill health coupled with the change of his address thrice in a short

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1181/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 3374/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

condoning delay in filing the appeal. doning delay in filing the appeal. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1181/M/2018 & 6.4 The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected The appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and rejected in limine without giving any finding

KISHOR JETHALAL MORBIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 250Section 51

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding 7. before the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual, has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 53,84,950/-. However as per the information available on record, the assessee

ANANDKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4192/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80H

84,051/-. Aggrieved by the same, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) for allowance of 100% deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on account of sale proceeds of DEPB license. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in denying deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on sale proceeds of DEPB license. On further appeal