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.

44 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 32Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Kolkata11Mumbai6Lucknow4Pune4Bangalore3Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 80I63Section 8030Section 115J29Deduction28Addition to Income24Condonation of Delay17Section 143(3)16Depreciation15Section 119(2)(b)12Limitation/Time-bar

BIZZNET ONLINE SYSTEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to the condition aforesaid

ITA 1112/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1112/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1114/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2012-13) Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Gulshan Villa, Oomer Park, Warden Road, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai – 400 026. Pan: Aabcb-2432-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit Circle -1-Thane , 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400 604. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 143(3)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

12
Exemption12
Section 25011

BIZZNET ONLINE SYSTEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to the condition aforesaid

ITA 1114/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1112/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1114/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2012-13) Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Gulshan Villa, Oomer Park, Warden Road, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai – 400 026. Pan: Aabcb-2432-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit Circle -1-Thane , 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400 604. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 143(3)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 323/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

ITA 5511/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4144/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3708/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2208/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5855/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2241/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

BHALCHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 230/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 154

32A, Chandra Lok, Aliganj, Lucknow. Lucknow. PAN:AABTB4504D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Shyam Lall, C.A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 17/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 19/05/2022 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate order of learned CIT(A) dated 20/02/2019, 10/01/2018 and 27/03/2019

BHALCHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 191/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 154

32A, Chandra Lok, Aliganj, Lucknow. Lucknow. PAN:AABTB4504D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Shyam Lall, C.A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 17/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 19/05/2022 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate order of learned CIT(A) dated 20/02/2019, 10/01/2018 and 27/03/2019

BHALCHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 197/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 154

32A, Chandra Lok, Aliganj, Lucknow. Lucknow. PAN:AABTB4504D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Shyam Lall, C.A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 17/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 19/05/2022 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate order of learned CIT(A) dated 20/02/2019, 10/01/2018 and 27/03/2019

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FIXIT PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2833/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.N.Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 10Section 115J

Delay is condoned and appeal admitted. 2. Revenue assails an order dated 19.09.2017 of CIT(A)-6, Chennai. Out of the three grounds taken by the Revenue, Ground Nos.1 & 3 are general needing no adjudication. Through its Ground No.2, grievance raised by the Department is on the deletion of an addition for share of loss from two firms, made

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/371/2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

ITA 852/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43(5)Section 73

32A(3) it has specifically mentioned the items to be considered for computing total income. Explanation.-Where for any assessment year, investment allowance is to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section in respect of any ship or aircraft acquired or any machinery or plant installed in more than one previous year, and the total income

DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S AMALGAMATED PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 451/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 4(1) Unit No.302A, 3Rd Floor, Elgin 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aaykarbhavan, Kolkata Chambers, Ashutosh Vs. West Bengal-700069 Mukherjee Road, 1A, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca6995B Assessee By : Shri Pratushjhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri PratushJhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80I

delay and accordingly, we condone the same by admitting the appeal for adjudication. 03. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 80IE of the Act of ₹5,82,61,479/-. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income dated

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. Subsequently the 2 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. assessee company filed its revised return of income on 9-12-2008 showing total loss at Rs.3

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

32A or clause. (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

32A or clause. (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form 37 from an accountant as defined in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section