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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai848Delhi742Mumbai682Pune447Kolkata349Hyderabad300Surat261Bangalore230Ahmedabad216Jaipur177Chandigarh154Indore153Karnataka147Nagpur133Amritsar121Raipur118Visakhapatnam104Cochin101Panaji96Lucknow73Cuttack61Jodhpur52Calcutta41SC29Rajkot28Patna25Guwahati21Varanasi20Allahabad17Telangana17Jabalpur10Dehradun9Agra8Rajasthan6Andhra Pradesh3Orissa3Ranchi1Kerala1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 145(3)5Section 2715Section 1474Section 12A4Addition to Income4Section 693Section 271(1)(c)3Section 1593Section 148

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Because the assessee duly discharged her onus of proving the cash credits to be genuine. The addition

SHOBHA DEVI ,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI,UP

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

2
TDS2
ITA 429/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shobha Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 285, Suri Wali Gali, Ward-2(3)(1), Near Masjid Pratap Jhansi Pura Nagar, Sipri Bzaaar, Jhansi, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpd4091R Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. Shobha Devi 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs 12,19,200/- made on account of unexplained investment under section

SH. JUGENDRA SINGH YADAV,AGRA vs. ACIT, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 388/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 44A

condone the nominal delay of 10 days occurred in filing the appeals, as there was reasonable cause, which prevented the assessee to file the same within the period of limitation. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in executing works contract for Agra Development Authority, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

ITA 3/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra31 May 2018AY 2013-14

34- 50-56/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 40 City Center, BPLS11851A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior BPLS02712D Bhander SBN, BPLS11851A Datia 41- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57-60 & 78-80 State Bank of 46 City Center, BPLS11614B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Maksundangarh, Group of SBI and Ors. 47- 35 & 31 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 48 City

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

ITA 6/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra31 May 2018AY 2013-14

34- 50-56/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 40 City Center, BPLS11851A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior BPLS02712D Bhander SBN, BPLS11851A Datia 41- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57-60 & 78-80 State Bank of 46 City Center, BPLS11614B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Maksundangarh, Group of SBI and Ors. 47- 35 & 31 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 48 City

MITHLA YADAV L/H OF LATE GYAN SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 3(1), GWALIOR

Appeal stand dismissed in above terms

ITA 412/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 412/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Smt. Mithla Yadav Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ (L/H Of Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav) Ward 3(1), Gwalior. 67, Kaulonipura, Vs. Preetam Singh Ghas Mandi, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afbpy-6128-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Appellant Herein Smt. Mithla Yadav Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against An Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 21-06-2023 Confirming Assessment Order Dated 19-11-2018 As Passed By Ld. Ao Assessing Total Income Of Rs.107.01 Lacs. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 31 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing By Revenue That The Appellant Smt. Mithla Yadav Has Claimed Herself To Be The Legal Representative Of The Deceased Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav Who Is Stated To Have Left For His Heavenly Abode. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submits That Neither She Has Proved Herself As The Legal Representative As Per Section 2(29) Of Income Tax Act R.W.S 2(11) Of Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Nor

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 159Section 2(29)

delay of 31 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing by revenue that the appellant Smt. Mithla Yadav has claimed herself to be the legal representative of the deceased Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav who is stated to have left for his heavenly abode. The Ld. Sr. DR submits that neither

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

JAHNVI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD EXEMTION, AGRA RCC, AGRA

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 141/AGR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.141/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Jahnvi Educational Trust Ito (Exemption) बनाम/ Vs. 130, Sector-9, Avas Vikas Colony Aaykar Bhawan Mg Road Sikandra Up – 282007 Sanjay Placed, Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabtj-1711-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra (Ca) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

delay of 7 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. The assessee being registered entity u/s 12AA filed return of income declaring deficit of Rs.18.92 Lacs. The trust is stated to be engaged in carrying out educational activities. The CPC denied the claim made by assessee u/s 11 on the ground that the details of registration u/s 12AB