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 151(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai259Mumbai245Delhi231Karnataka113Chandigarh98Kolkata88Jaipur85Bangalore85Ahmedabad85Pune72Hyderabad66Visakhapatnam41Amritsar41Calcutta35Surat31Panaji30Nagpur29Rajkot28Raipur26Lucknow21Indore20Andhra Pradesh20Cuttack13Guwahati10Telangana9Jabalpur6Patna6SC5Agra4Orissa4Varanasi3Allahabad3Rajasthan1Jodhpur1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 1518Section 1485Section 1444Section 684Section 10(38)4Reopening of Assessment4Addition to Income4Cash Deposit3Section 147

OM PRAKASH,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS, HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Baramai, Ward-4(3)(4), Sadabad, Hathras Hathras (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dkbpp7713K

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The preliminary legal issue raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Om Prakash 4. I have heard the rival submissions

2
Reassessment2

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 68

condonation of delay before us. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 15 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and admits the same for adjudication as the Department has not raised any objection. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a Co-operative Marketing Society registered under Madhya Co-operative

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- Neeta Agarwal “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming

KARAN KANT JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), ETAH

ITA 209/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Garg (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

delay of 288 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, raised a pertinent legal ground and stated that the reopening approval was given in a mechanical manner and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. For the same, Ld. AR ahs referred to various judicial decisions, the copies of which have