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 85clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai427Chennai392Delhi308Kolkata242Ahmedabad140Karnataka129Bangalore124Jaipur108Hyderabad106Pune91Surat72Chandigarh68Indore40Calcutta38Rajkot37Nagpur32Cuttack28Raipur27Visakhapatnam25Lucknow23Ranchi22Cochin20Kerala17Patna12SC10Amritsar9Agra8Guwahati8Allahabad7Jabalpur5Jodhpur5Panaji4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)10Penalty6Section 272A5Section 2504Section 1474Natural Justice4Section 113Section 2743Section 271(1)3

M/SWAHEGURU BUSINESS (P) LTD.,SARV NAGAR vs. DCIT-CC, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 46/AGR/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2021AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

85 1. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 2. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR ,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 229/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 11(1)(a)3
Exemption2
Addition to Income2
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal. 5. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 228/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal. 5. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition

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

delay of ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd 3 days. The bonafide intention of the assessee to settle the disputes by paying due taxes thereon cannot be doubted in the instant case. Substantive provision of not preferring any further appeal and by paying due taxes had been complied with by the Assessee Company. The filing of Form

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

delay of ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd 3 days. The bonafide intention of the assessee to settle the disputes by paying due taxes thereon cannot be doubted in the instant case. Substantive provision of not preferring any further appeal and by paying due taxes had been complied with by the Assessee Company. The filing of Form

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

delay of ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd 3 days. The bonafide intention of the assessee to settle the disputes by paying due taxes thereon cannot be doubted in the instant case. Substantive provision of not preferring any further appeal and by paying due taxes had been complied with by the Assessee Company. The filing of Form

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 497/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

condoned by CIT(E), Lucknow]. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by disallowing the amount based on Form-10B. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act and the same was denied. 5. It was brought to my notice that while certifying the Form-10B, the auditor of assessee has, by mistake, filled

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI CHARRA,CHARRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 4(1)(1) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 250(6)

85% of the total receipts for charitable purposes. 2. None responded for the assessee. Perused the records and heard the ld. Departmental Representative, who has supported the impugned order. 3. At the very outset, it appears that this appeal has been filed on 28.02.2025 against the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 by a delay of about 113 days. In the interest