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 56(2)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai176Chennai145Karnataka134Delhi113Ahmedabad75Bangalore69Nagpur67Kolkata59Chandigarh55Hyderabad42Jaipur35Calcutta34Amritsar33Panaji32Pune32Cochin17Lucknow16Indore16Cuttack14Surat11SC9Visakhapatnam8Rajkot7Telangana7Guwahati5Jodhpur2Allahabad2Dehradun2Jabalpur2Orissa2Raipur2Varanasi2Patna1Agra1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 2638Condonation of Delay8Section 143(3)7Section 1476Section 13(1)(c)6Section 56(2)(vii)5Section 80P4Addition to Income4Section 148

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

ITA 43/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 263

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

ITA 42/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam
3
Section 142(1)3
Disallowance3
Exemption2
22 Mar 2021
AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 263

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart

VARDHANAPU MANIKUMARI OF LATE EARNEST CHRISTOPHER VARDHANAPU,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

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

ITA 256/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Earnest Christopher Ward-1 Vardhanapu Bhimavaram D.No.21-16-30A Dora Bangalow Mission Compound, West Godavari [Pan : Aeepv0600F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s husband, Shri Earnest Christopher Vardhanapu stated to have worked as pastor with Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur was in receipt of 300 sq.yds of land, valued at Rs.75,00,000/- as gift on 28.05.2013 without

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

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

GUMMADI SARASWATHI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 375/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 375/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Gummadi Saraswathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 C/O. Ca Mv Prasad Income Tax Office First Floor D.No. 19-15-47 Opposite Prasad & Co Contractors Opp. Sai Baba Temple D.No. 6-3-871, Snehalata Tenali – 522201 Greenlands Road, Begumpet Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan:Amapg7100K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

condone the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual filed her return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 05.12.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.2,27,030/-. The case of the assessee

THE FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 166/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.166/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Farmers Service Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1, Srikakulam. Srikakulam. Pan: Aabtt4377L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

condone the delay of 122 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, The Farmers Service Cooperative Limited, is a primary agricultural Credit Cooperative Society established with the object of providing loans for agricultural purpose

RAMESH MANNAVA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

condone the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16. Based on the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has purchased