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 378clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka103Delhi94Mumbai71Chennai70Kolkata47Bangalore41Calcutta37Jaipur36Hyderabad35Ahmedabad22Rajkot18Indore16Pune13Lucknow13Cuttack11Amritsar9Visakhapatnam8Varanasi6Chandigarh5Jodhpur5Allahabad5Surat3Telangana3Cochin2SC2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 14710Section 80C8Section 43B8Section 13(1)(c)6Section 148A6Section 36(1)(va)6Section 1546Addition to Income6Section 143(3)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 312/VIZ/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jun 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Rama Swami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.R.S. Narayan, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

4
Disallowance4
Deduction4
Limitation/Time-bar4

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 313/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Rama Swami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.R.S. Narayan, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 379/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 8Section 80CSection 80DSection 80E

delay 11. involved in filing the present appeal is not inordinate and is further substantiated by justifiable reasons, therefore, the same merits condonation. 12. On merits, Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, the Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao appeal, submitted that

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 8Section 80CSection 80DSection 80E

delay 11. involved in filing the present appeal is not inordinate and is further substantiated by justifiable reasons, therefore, the same merits condonation. 12. On merits, Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, the Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao appeal, submitted that

THE CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,CHODAVARAM vs. THE DY.CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 25/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delayed payment cannot be allowed u/sec. 43B. The report, the addition of Rs. 1,19,93,542/- is confirmed on the basis of judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and CBDT circular. Hence, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Against the impugned order, Assessee preferred the instant appeal

THE CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,CHODAVARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 28/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delayed payment cannot be allowed u/sec. 43B. The report, the addition of Rs. 1,19,93,542/- is confirmed on the basis of judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and CBDT circular. Hence, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Against the impugned order, Assessee preferred the instant appeal

SYSTEMATIC ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 184/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

condonation is hereby requested in the interest of justice.” The ld.CIT(A), therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dated 27/04/2021

SYSTEMATIC ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 185/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

condonation is hereby requested in the interest of justice.” The ld.CIT(A), therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dated 27/04/2021