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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7Hyderabad4Lucknow4Delhi3Chennai3Cuttack2Bangalore1Jaipur1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 26316Section 44A14Section 144B12Section 6810Section 1449Condonation of Delay9Section 271B8Exemption8Section 43B6Penalty

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

6
Depreciation6
Section 143(1)5
ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.\n12.1.\n12.2.\n12. Appellant

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

delay in filing Form 10B, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted condonation and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the exemption claim. Regarding the penalty under Section 271D, the Tribunal found it unsustainable due to the absence of a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and the initiation of penalty proceedings after the period of limitation.", "result": "Allowed

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

M/S. BHAGABATI BUIL & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,CUTTACK vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M/S. Bhagabati Bhagabati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Dated 27.11.2019 27.11.2019 In Appeal No.Itba/Ast/S/144/2019 Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1021143134(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year2017- 18. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 144Section 263

condone the delay of 24 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ld AR has filed written submission as follows: “1. That basically the ld Pr.CIT -1 initiated the proceeding under section 263 on 1.6.2021 by leveled the assessment order as erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the self satisfy reasons

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 662/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)

condoned. 5. As regards the decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there is no dispute that the appeal filed against the deceased assessee is not covered under the provisions of section 292B and, therefore, the same is an invalid appeal liable to be dismissed. However, the appeal dismissed being invalid in limini due to the reason

MAHESH K FARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-II) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3349/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3349/मुं/2013 ("न.व. 2008-09) Mahesh K. Faria, 71/73, 4Th Floor, Bazar Gate Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaapf-0587-F ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Osd-Ii), Central Range - 7 Mumbai. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Hiral Sejpal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit –Dr & Ms. Vranda U Matkari-Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT –DR &
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153Section 153A

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: A search and seizure action u/s. 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’] was 3 carried out in the business and residential premises of Faria Group

VINAYAKA MEDICAL CARE CENTRE PVT LTD,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 90/Chny/ 2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: 22.12.2021
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 245D(4)Section 263

44A, Second Agraharam, Circle-1, Salem. Salem-636 001. PAN: AAACV 6921A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे / Appellant by : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT(DR) ""यथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent by : 22.12.2021 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of hearing : घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM: This

SATYA NARAYANA PRUSTY,RAJ RANAPUR vs. ITO KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

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

ITA 311/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.311/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Satyanarayan Prusty, Vs Ito, Khurda C/O- Raj Ranapur, Nayagarh Pan No. :Adwpp 5099 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dulal Narayan Jethi & Shri Natabar Panda, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 24.11.2022, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1047613346(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 260 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Condonation Petition Along With Affidavit. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Delay Was On Account Of Non-Submission Of The Original Hard Copy Of The Orders. It Was The Submission That As There Was Confusion In Regard To Filing Of The Appeal Electronically & Physically, This Issue Had Come Up & Immediately When The Defect Was Brought To Attention, The Assessee Has Rectified The Same & It Was The Prayer That The Delay May Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Dulal Narayan Jethi &For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 44ASection 44A(2)(i)

delay in filing the appeal of 260 days stands condoned and the appeal is disposed on merits. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of dealing in spare parts for auto rickshaw and motorcycles. It was the submission that the turnover of the assessee was in the range of above Rs.50 lakhs

IYERGOPAL ASHOKKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO-CHE-W-(61)(11), COIMBATOE

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

ITA 182/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.182/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Iyergopal Ashokkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 658, P.N. Palayam Road, Puliyakulam, Che-W-61(11), Coimbatore 641 045. Coimbatore. [Pan:Ahqpa2689G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre) [Nfac], Delhi Dated 14.12.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Against Which, The Ld. Dr Has Not 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 4Section 44A

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. A recovery survey was conducted in the business premises

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY

ITA/240/2014HC Delhi18 Nov 2014
Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

condonation of delay. In these two appeals and ITA No. 348/2014 filed against M/s Sanskriti Educational Society, notice has not been served on the said respondent, but as we were inclined to dismiss the Revenue‟s appeals, we have heard arguments on behalf of the Revenue. In ITA 240/2014 and ITA 406/2014, the respondents i.e. M/s Indraprastha Cancer Society

SHRI SANDEEP S SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4801/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/w Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 68

Delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has challenged the following additions:- “Addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act is not justified as the Appellant has opted presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Act. 1. The ld. NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld.A.O. to invoke the provisions of section

GOURI SHANKAR JAIN HUF ,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T-11, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1662/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Gouri Shankar Jain Huf…………….…………………................................……………….….........Appellant C/O. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates 133/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road Pushkal Bhawan 3Rd Floor Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan : Aachg 9644 L] Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Kolkata…..………...…..................……………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 1St, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 11, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 15/03/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 27 (Twenty Seven) Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Huf & Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 29/11/2014, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,08,400/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That It Had Low Net Profit Or Loss Shown From Large Gross Receipts. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 20/12/2016. Later, The Ld. Pr. Cit, Revised The Assessment U/S 263 Of The Act After Issuing Showcause Notice On 28/02/2019. The Reasons For Revision Are Given In Para 4 Page 2 Of The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pr. Cit, Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 3. The assessee is a HUF and had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 29/11/2014, declaring total income of Rs.15,08,400/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that it had low net profit or loss shown from large gross receipts

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

44A of the Act, observed : "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash payments which find entries in the books of account. Mercantile system of accounting was explained

KARTHIKEYARAJ,ULUNDURPET vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 2392/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2392/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

delay is condoned accordingly. 3. When the case was called for hearings, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The case was first listed 21.11.2024, but no one appeared from assessee side. The notice was then served through Ld DR, and case was fixed on 10.12.2024. Again no one appeared from assessee side and case was re-fixed

ACIT, CIRCLE 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2473/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

delay in filing the appeals are condoned. 4. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A on the ground that the AO had failed to record his WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd., satisfaction whereas