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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai186Chennai179Delhi150Kolkata72Chandigarh57Bangalore54Hyderabad51Jaipur44Amritsar42Pune34Ahmedabad34Indore27Lucknow23Cochin16SC14Cuttack13Raipur12Surat9Jodhpur8Rajkot8Patna7Nagpur6Visakhapatnam5Guwahati5Allahabad2Panaji1Jabalpur1Ranchi1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Section 26313Depreciation7Addition to Income6Section 1445Section 1485Section 254(1)5Section 1474Section 142(1)3

MUKESH RAJENDRA PRASAD THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Assistant Commissioner Of Thakur Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vs 3-9-9R Navjivan Society, Room No.708, 7Th Floor, Lamington Road, Mumbai- Fortune Square-Ii, Chala, 400008 Daman Road, Vapi-396191 Pan : Aarpt 3055 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 68

delay of seven days is condoned. Now adverting to merit of the case. 5. On merit, we find that assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 06.10.2016 at Rs.28,49,920/-. In the computation of total income, the assessee claimed net agricultural income of Rs.20,99,630/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

Condonation of Delay3
Deduction3
Section 362

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2998/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 43A

condone the delay. 24. Keeping in view in our decision in Ground No.1 of the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.2998/Ahd/2014, we allow this Cross Objection in view of the fact that identical ground has already been decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007- 08 in ITA No.3080/Ahd/2011. Therefore, while following

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1501/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 43A

condone the delay. 24. Keeping in view in our decision in Ground No.1 of the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.2998/Ahd/2014, we allow this Cross Objection in view of the fact that identical ground has already been decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007- 08 in ITA No.3080/Ahd/2011. Therefore, while following

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

ITA 281/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.281/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ A-1103, Regent Residency, Circle-1(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction Vs. Nr. Saurabh Society, Pal, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat-394 510 Surat, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Center, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anjps 9031 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 249(3)Section 250

condoning the delay of 70 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). ITA No.281/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Kirtikumar N Shah 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and in circumstances

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

In the result, various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 263

delay is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in treatment and disposal of industrial waste in Vapi Gujarat. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 10/10/2018 declaring income of Rs. 3,47,07,098/- under

TARIT F. DAS,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1, BHARUCH

In the result this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Tarit F Das, A.C.I.T., Aaa-49, Shreeji Sadan Bungalows, Circle-1, Vs. Swaminarayan Mandir Road, Bharuch. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch. Pan No. Acgpd 8543 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

delay is filing the appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merits of the case, 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Das Fabrication engaged in the business of fabrication work, labour supply for load and unloading of coal and salt on hiring. The assessee while filing the return of income offered

SHYAMLAL LALCHAND SINGH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

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

ITA 209/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 37(1)Section 68

depreciation on fresh fixed assets increased in fixed assets treated as income. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PRADEEPSINH BACHUBHAI GOHIL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Pradeepsinh Bachubhai Gohil, I.T.O., 304, Kailash Tower, N H No. 8, Ward-4, Vs. Samroli Chikhli, Dist.-Navsari, Navsari. Navsari-396521. Pan No. Aropg 7048 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

delay of 19 days in filing of appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merits of the case. 6. We find that the assessment was completed under section 144 in making the addition of Rs., 6.12 Crore for the want of explanation. We find that before ld CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submissions of the assessee

THE WANKA VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD,TAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2 BARDOLI, BARDOLI

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

ITA 470/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condonation of delay in filing returned of income. 6. I find that in the present appeal, the dispute is very narrow as to whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P without filing returned of income. First I deal with the objection of ld Sr DR that in assessing officer has no power to entertain the claim