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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6Delhi6Chennai4Bangalore4Pune2Karnataka1Ahmedabad1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 92C8Section 270A4Transfer Pricing3Limitation/Time-bar3Section 2502Section 271G2Section 1542Section 92B2Addition to Income

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5942/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 154Section 250Section 270A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 14,50,038/- by the AO. 6. In this regard Ld. AR reiterated

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALSTOM INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, assessee’s cross objection is dismissed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1727/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed
2
Penalty2
ITAT Mumbai
31 Aug 2020
AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna &For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

delay in ITA No. 956/Mum/2018 is condoned. The various grounds arising in the assessee’s appeal and cross objection are dealt as under. One common issue raised in these appeals relate to disallowance of the claim of adjustment for extraordinary expenses relating to recovery of production overheads, selling and administrative overheads, one time technological fee for Chennai metro

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TOSHIBA JOHNSON ELEVATORS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 488/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Akhtar Ansari, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. M.P. Lohia, CA &
Section 12ASection 138Section 250Section 271GSection 273BSection 92C

condone the delay in filing of this appeal by assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee’s case was referred under section 92CA (1) of the Act by the AO to TPO. In view of this reference a notice under section 92CA (2)/92D (3) of the Act was issued

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 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

DIAMOND DYE-CHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

92D in respect of any person or class of persons". As per this Explanation, Addl. CIT Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai is not the TPO & hence is not authorised to pass the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA. 3. The Applicant therefore seeks to raise the following additional preliminary ground of appeal as ground no. 1: "1. Re.: Assessment