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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 92Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata31Delhi18Chennai13Bangalore12Mumbai8Hyderabad7Pune4Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Addition to Income6Limitation/Time-bar5Section 92C4Transfer Pricing4Comparables/TP4Section 92C(2)2Section 144C(3)2Section 92B

SUNNY MADHUKAR BHAGAT,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid\nobservations

ITA 2450/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Ankita Tarafdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

Section 5 of\nthe Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of\ncase of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that\nalthough the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the\nmerits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A\nliberal approach, therefore, should be taken

YASH JWELLERY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 11(3)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1733/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2
Disallowance2
Condonation of Delay2
Bench:
For Appellant: Shri Amod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Tajinder Pal Singh
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing present appeal. 6. On merits, the only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is regarding charging of notional interest on outstanding receivables from its Associated Enterprises. 7. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the records are: The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale

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

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2390/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate/Shri Ninad Patade, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi, Sr. D/R
Section 92B

condoned and both the cross-objections are admitted. 3. The appeals and the cross-objections were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. The grievance of the revenue is that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the bank guarantee fee levied by the AO and the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5296/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate/Shri Ninad Patade, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi, Sr. D/R
Section 92B

condoned and both the cross-objections are admitted. 3. The appeals and the cross-objections were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. The grievance of the revenue is that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the bank guarantee fee levied by the AO and the assessee

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/For Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

delay may kindly be condoned. 3. Before we proceed to address the respective Grounds of appeal, we may briefly refer to the background of the case. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of providing Customer interaction (customer acquisition, customer services), Back-office (Receivables management

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7694/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/For Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

delay may kindly be condoned. 3. Before we proceed to address the respective Grounds of appeal, we may briefly refer to the background of the case. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of providing Customer interaction (customer acquisition, customer services), Back-office (Receivables management

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAPGEMINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 55, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2657/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M P LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds pressed during the course of hearing by Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant invited our attention to the Ground No. 16 and 17 raised as additional ground