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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 263(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai422Kolkata327Delhi263Mumbai263Pune256Bangalore161Hyderabad151Karnataka114Jaipur98Ahmedabad88Chandigarh78Visakhapatnam73Indore62Cochin58Calcutta56Cuttack55Panaji41Rajkot36Surat36Raipur35Nagpur27Amritsar25Patna20Lucknow17Dehradun9Varanasi7SC7Jabalpur7Jodhpur6Agra6Guwahati5Telangana4Ranchi3Allahabad2Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26315Section 54B8Section 271(1)(c)6Section 1444Section 1483Section 143(3)3Penalty3Section 2502Section 1472

M/S KRISHAK SAHAKARI SHAKKAR KARKHANA,GUNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 145/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

1 month and 17 days in preferring this appeal by the appellant. Thus the appeal is out of the limitation period by 47 days. The appellant in the Form 35 has neither informed nor it has filed any condonation application or any affidavit for the delay caused in filing the appeal. Normally, in case of delayed filing of appeal

ANSHUL JAIN,MAINPURI vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per direction given hereinabove

ITA 129/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed
Long Term Capital Gains2
Deduction2
Addition to Income2
ITAT Agra
24 Jun 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalpr.Cit-1, Anshul Jain, Agra. C/O Sri Shyam Narayan Vs. Jain, Mohalla Kabir Ganj, Bhogoan, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh-205262. Pan-Aqgpj6059E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263

1. That, the notice under section 263 dated 28-03-2022, was not served upon the appellant, as it was neither served on person, nor on the registered e-mail as shown on his e-filing portal. 2. That, the order under section 263 dated 31-03-2022, was not served upon the appellant, as it was neither served

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

GORA BAI SAHU ,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

ITA 35/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Gora Bai Sahu, Income Tax Officer, Shri Ram Charan Sahu & Ashok Nagar, L/H Late Gora Bai, Sony Vs Madhya Pradesh-473331 Colony, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh-473331 Pan-Fdzps8877N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case:- This case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act vide noticed dated 28.03.2019 on the basis of AIR information of purchasing immovable property having value more than Rs. 30,00,000/-. The legal heir of the assessee Shri Ramcharan Lal Sahu filed the return

SMT. SIMRANJEET SINGH,AGRA vs. PR.CIT., AGRA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 52/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsmt. Simranjeet Singh Vs. Pr.Cit 158, Pratap Pura Sanjay Place, Agra Up- 282002 Agra 282002 Up "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Byeps9366J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

1) notice during the course of assessment but also before the PCIT he had duly explained source of all these entries coming from banking channel involving all the above family members who are stated to be assessed in the very jurisdiction. 5. That being the case, we are of the considered view the Ld. PCIT’s impugned revision directions have