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.

15 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai432Mumbai416Delhi363Kolkata230Bangalore185Ahmedabad185Hyderabad176Karnataka133Jaipur112Chandigarh103Pune65Visakhapatnam63Nagpur50Amritsar49Indore45Calcutta38Surat37Lucknow37Cochin27Cuttack24Rajkot22Agra15Patna15Telangana15SC14Raipur11Guwahati10Dehradun7Varanasi7Allahabad6Jodhpur5Orissa3Jabalpur3Ranchi2Rajasthan2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A(1)(ac)12Section 234C7Section 271(1)(c)6Section 12A6Natural Justice6Addition to Income6Section 145(3)5Exemption5Section 80G(5)(iv)

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 207Section 234BSection 234C

condonation 9. of delay before CIT(A) NFAC but the same were not discussed much less distinguished. 'NFAC' has only discussed the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Subhash Malik vs CIT [2010] 325 ITR 243 (All) (Page No.60 to 65) and has distinguished it too on flimsy ground,placing reliance on hyper technical consideration mentioned in Para

4
Section 143(1)4
Section 69A4
Penalty3

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

65 (Del) (2013) 30 taxmann.com 41 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under s. 12A of the Act and whether the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 578/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

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

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

65 (Del) (2013) 30 taxmann.com 41 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under s. 12A of the Act and whether the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 579/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

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

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

65 (Del) (2013) 30 taxmann.com 41 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under s. 12A of the Act and whether the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse

BRAJENDRA VIKRAM SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(5), ORAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee to decide the same on merits. Shri Brajendra Vikram Singh vs. PCIT 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for impugned year on 26.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.79,510/-. The assessee also filed the revised return

SH RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

ITA 62/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 69A

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed of his return of income on 15.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,04,818/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS

BHARTIYA SADBHAWNA MANCH,JHANSI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 and 267/Agr/2025 are allowed

ITA 267/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

delay stands condoned. 3. Since, the facts and issue involved in both these appeals are similar, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under. ITA No. 266/Agr/2025: 4. Brief facts state that assessee filed

BHARTIYA SADBHAWNA MANCH,JHANSI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 and 267/Agr/2025 are allowed

ITA 266/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

delay stands condoned. 3. Since, the facts and issue involved in both these appeals are similar, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under. ITA No. 266/Agr/2025: 4. Brief facts state that assessee filed

SINGH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE ,MORENA vs. WARD 1, MORENA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/AGR/2024[201213]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Years: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We, accordingly, proceed ex parte against him. 3. Learned Sr. DR, Shri Shrivastava submits that the assessee has been non-cooperative all along. He vehemently supports the learned lower authorities’ action in making

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

65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed Form No. 68 before the learned AO on 3-2-2020, which was delayed by 3 days

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

65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed Form No. 68 before the learned AO on 3-2-2020, which was delayed by 3 days

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 2025AY 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

65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed Form No. 68 before the learned AO on 3-2-2020, which was delayed by 3 days

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

section 145(3) and application of net profit rate at 8% in preceding years. 7. Because the addition of Rs.13,65,613/- confirmed by CIT(A), ought to have been deleted and/or modified considering the facts of the case. 2. The above two appeals were filed by the assessee delayed by 10 days, for which the assessee has filed condonation

MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

ITA 271/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

condone the delay of 231 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessment was reopened in this case vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2021 on the basis of an information that the assessee had sold an immovable property at a total consideration of Rs.49,20,000/- (as against the stamp

SATENDRA KUMAR KHARE,MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 74/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 10Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- as per 7(b) c Commission income:- as para 7(a) Rs.1,65,056/- d Assessed Income Rs.50,91,484/- 4. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee