Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai249 Jaipur147 Chennai147 Ahmedabad126 Delhi121 Pune94 Kolkata93 Surat85 Hyderabad78 Bangalore78 Indore48 Chandigarh41 Rajkot37 Lucknow34 Nagpur22 Patna19 Visakhapatnam16 Panaji13 Cuttack13 Amritsar12 Guwahati10 SC9 Raipur9 Agra6 Jabalpur6 Jodhpur5 Cochin4 Ranchi3 Allahabad2 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)7 Penalty5 Natural Justice5 Section 2743 Section 271(1)3 Condonation of Delay3 Section 1442 Section 2502 Section 271

KAVITA RALHAN,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

ITA 443/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

section 144, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F proceedings, as the case may be, involve identical issue of condonation of delay

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

2

Section 249(2)2

Section 249(3)2

Limitation/Time-bar2

AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

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

ITA 583/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

271(B) of the Act. It appears that the reasons for the delay shown before learned CIT(A) were that the said penalty order remained with the staff of the appellant assessee. It is only when appellant’s counsel, on going through the e-proceedings’ tab, became aware about the impugned penalty order. The limitation period for filing first appeal

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

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

ITA 584/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

271(B) of the Act. It appears that the reasons for the delay shown before learned CIT(A) were that the said penalty order remained with the staff of the appellant assessee. It is only when appellant’s counsel, on going through the e-proceedings’ tab, became aware about the impugned penalty order. The limitation period for filing first appeal