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.

1,929 results for “condonation of delay”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai434Mumbai359Delhi264Kolkata211Bangalore133Hyderabad68Pune63Chandigarh57Ahmedabad55Jaipur50Amritsar42Indore32Lucknow26Cochin16Karnataka15SC14Cuttack13Raipur12Rajkot9Surat9Jodhpur8Patna7Calcutta6Nagpur6Visakhapatnam5Guwahati5Kerala2Allahabad2Ranchi1Dehradun1Telangana1Panaji1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)64Section 26360Addition to Income60Section 153A45Depreciation42Disallowance42Section 1127Section 25025Condonation of Delay25Section 40

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

Showing 1–20 of 1,929 · Page 1 of 97

...
24
Deduction23
Limitation/Time-bar22

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3552/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence led by assessee before us, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 5. Coming to ITA No. 3351/Mum/2015 regarding levy of penalty

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3551/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence led by assessee before us, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 5. Coming to ITA No. 3351/Mum/2015 regarding levy of penalty

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

ITA 337/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shreesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by confirming

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

ITA 336/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shreesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by confirming

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 719/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)

depreciation made in the order passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act, dated 30/12/2011 for which a prayer for condonation of delay

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2354/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

depreciation) and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and Subsequently order u/s 143(3) r.w.s144C(1) of the Act determining the total income u/s 115JB of Rs. 90,99,78,259/- was passed on 28.01.2014. The Assessing Officer (A.O) after recording the reasons for reopening of assesseement has issued notice

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 630/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Add. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

delay cannot be condoned. 4.9 In view of the above, I am of the considerate view that, since the appellant has filed Form 10B later than due date of filing of income tax return, thus it is not covered by immunity granted by Para 4(i) of Circular No. 10/2019. Further, the appellant has also not submitted details of capital

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

condoned only under section 119(2)(b) by the competent authority, and that since the issue originated from the intimation under section 143(1) and an appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A), the same cannot be examined in the present proceedings. The dispute thus centres on the nature of Form 10-IC, the scope of appellate jurisdiction

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1364/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kirshnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 5242/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri R.C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merit. 10. In ground no.1, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of depreciation

DCIT-11(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANGAM INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld
Section 2(24)

delay in filing of cross-objection stands condoned and the cross- objection is admitted. 9. Grounds of Cross-Objections 9.1 The ground raised in the cross-objection read as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent prays that deduction of Education Cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax ought to have been allowed

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 639/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri SudhankarVerma, Sr. D.R
Section 41(1)

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1580/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri SudhankarVerma, Sr. D.R
Section 41(1)

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

INFRASRUCTURE SERVICES ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 33(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 6625/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation in view of\nnon-submission of purchase invoices of Rs.8,01,000/- for financial year\n2015-16 and Rs.2.65,545/- without appreciating the fact that said\nassets have been used in the business and income generated using this\nFixed Assets have been offered to tax. The Lrnd. AO has considered the\npurchase of Asset as unexplained Asset

INTEGRAL URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-01, JAIPUR

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

ITA 283/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT, Proxy for -DR
Section 271(1)

delay is not condoned and the appeal is not admitted and the same is dismissed in liminie 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal needs to be set aside and the ld. CIT(A) be directed to hear the appeal

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 238/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

depreciation for alleged personal use. 6. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one and another. 7. The appellant craves leave to urge, add, amend, alter, enlarge, modify, substitute, delete or withdraw any of the ground or ground and to adduce fresh evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 237/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

depreciation for alleged personal use. 6. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one and another. 7. The appellant craves leave to urge, add, amend, alter, enlarge, modify, substitute, delete or withdraw any of the ground or ground and to adduce fresh evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 1388/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 270A

condoned the delay of 36 days and\nadmitted the appeal.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant\nwas prevented by sufficient reason in not filing the appeal within the\ntime and submitted the reasons for delay in filing the appeal.\n5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and considered