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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 115Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2Pune1SC1

Key Topics

Section 444Section 115B3Section 133A3Section 143(2)2Section 69A2Addition to Income2Survey u/s 133A2

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007Supreme Court25 Mar 2009
Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

115B or section 115BB or section 115BBB or section 115E or section 164 or section 164A or section 167B, as the case may be, or the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf in the Finance Act of the relevant year, whichever is applicable. (ii) for the purposes of deduction of tax under sections 193, 194, 194A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai
16 Apr 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. When the present appeal was called for hearing, neither did anyone appear on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking an adjournment filed. From the perusal of the record, we find that in the previous six hearings also no one appeared on behalf

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2626/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,85,000/-by invoking provisions of section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961.on the basis of declaration

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HDFC STANDARAD LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals stands dismissed

ITA 1917/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon‟Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1917/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1918/Mum/2017 (यनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.5639/Mum/2017 (यनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1191/Mum/2017 (यनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-1(1)(2) M/S. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 12Th & 13Th Floor, Lodha Excelus बिाम/ 579, Aaykar Bhawan M.K. Road Mumbai 400 020. Appollo Mills Compound, Nm Joshi Marg Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach- 8755-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. Cross Objection No.228/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1917/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. Cross Objection No.227/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1918/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 7. Cross Objection No.33/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5639/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 8. Cross Objection No.33/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1191/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Advocate Shri Charanjeev Chandrapal
Section 28Section 44

115B as per the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the revenue is before us by way of ground nos. 5 to 8. 10.3 We find that Ld. CIT(A) has merely followed earlier view of the Tribunal. Similar view has been taken by coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, ITA Nos. 4078/Mum/2015