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.

2,143 results for “condonation of delay”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna467Delhi273Mumbai258Pune204Chennai160Bangalore158Kolkata104Ahmedabad68Hyderabad66Jaipur55Indore41Nagpur39Chandigarh38Lucknow32Cochin24Karnataka23Surat21Visakhapatnam19Raipur16Amritsar13Agra12Rajkot11Jodhpur10Jabalpur8Cuttack6Dehradun4Panaji3SC2Guwahati2Telangana2Varanasi2Orissa1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 154113Section 143(1)66Rectification u/s 15447Section 234E43Section 1142Section 143(3)38Addition to Income38TDS36Section 200A31Condonation of Delay

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3543/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash Jotwani

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3542/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Showing 1–20 of 2,143 · Page 1 of 108

...
25
Section 25024
Deduction23
Bench:
For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash Jotwani

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Condonation of Delay in online filing Form-10B on 12.03.2020 before the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)but the same was also got rejected without providing any opportunity of hearing and without considering the facts and circumstances. The assessee-trust also filed rectification application u/s 154

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Condonation of Delay in online filing Form-10B on 12.03.2020 before the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)but the same was also got rejected without providing any opportunity of hearing and without considering the facts and circumstances. The assessee-trust also filed rectification application u/s 154

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

delay of 13 days has been condoned. The assessee has raised ground of appeal with the grievance that Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing rectification order u/s 154

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)

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act has been used claiming it as for order u/s 144 of the Act, by the appellant to justify the delay in filing the instant appeal against order u/s 144 of the Act, which is passed on Page 4 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading

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)

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act has been used claiming it as for order u/s 144 of the Act, by the appellant to justify the delay in filing the instant appeal against order u/s 144 of the Act, which is passed on Page 4 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

condone the delay of 19 days in\nfiling the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devarathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

154 or not. Scope of rectification is limited to correcting error of fact or error of law, on the basis of material available on record. In the appeal under consideration the appellant has sought rectification on issues which will require fresh investigations of facts. The appellant has tried to use appeal against rejection of rectification application as a method

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 717/HYD/2022[26Q QUARTER-4 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 719/HYD/2022[26Q Quarter 2-2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 715/HYD/2022[26Q Quarter2 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 720/HYD/2022[26Q Quarter 4 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/HYD/2022[26Q Quarter 3 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 718/HYD/2022[24Q Quarter 4 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 721/HYD/2022[26Q Quarter 1 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification

M/S. PUNYABHOOMI WELFARE SERVICE SOCIETY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 528/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

rectification application filed by the assessee u/s. 154 before the CPC was not maintainable as scope of Section 154 is very limited to the mistake apparent from record, and debatable issues cannot be decided within the scope of Section 154 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the claim of the assessee that it has expenses

SMT. SHILPA GOPALA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2072/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Venkatesh KumarFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 249(3)

condonation of delay Synopsis Date Events 27.12.2016 Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) 09.06.2017 Rectification petition u/s 154 filed. 08.11.2017 Application

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Girish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144Section 156Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 270A

rectification application\ndue to inaction by the Ld. AO.\nTherefore, there was a delay of 209 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\ndue to Appellant's genuine and bonafide belief that grievances raised in\nrectification application filed u/s 154 would provide required and timely justice to\nthe Appellant.\nComputation of delay in filing an appeal against penalty