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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai534Mumbai355Delhi251Kolkata214Bangalore174Karnataka126Ahmedabad110Hyderabad108Chandigarh82Pune79Jaipur75Visakhapatnam50Amritsar46Calcutta39Indore39Surat36Panaji35Nagpur28Raipur22Patna18Lucknow14Rajkot13Allahabad11SC10Cuttack10Jodhpur9Telangana9Agra9Dehradun7Guwahati7Varanasi6Cochin6Jabalpur6Rajasthan5Orissa2Ranchi2Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)13Section 14711Section 2506Section 1485Condonation of Delay5Section 1544Section 271(1)(c)4Addition to Income4Limitation/Time-bar

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 146/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to\ndecide the appeal of the assessee on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm.\nThe return of income for the year under appeal was filed declaring\ntotal income at ‘Nil' and assessee has declared net agricultural\nincome of Rs.49,50,000/- which

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

4
Section 142(1)3
Section 903
Deduction2
ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

96,720/-, which was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed on 30.11.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.9,46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 464/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

96,720/-, which was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed on 30.11.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.9,46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 88/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 164(1)Section 234Section 249(2)

condonation application considering reason of delay as not bonafide. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not providing appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for explaining the reason for delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal which is against of law and principle of natural

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 156/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

96, Chitragupt Nagar, Kotra (Exemption), Gwalior. Sultana, Bhopal. PAN : AAAAO3353R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2025 ORDER Per:Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against two separate impugned orders both dated 27.01.2025 passed in Appeals

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 157/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

96, Chitragupt Nagar, Kotra (Exemption), Gwalior. Sultana, Bhopal. PAN : AAAAO3353R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2025 ORDER Per:Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against two separate impugned orders both dated 27.01.2025 passed in Appeals

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

ITA 58/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is non-filer and initiated proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, where he had reason to believe that income of Rs.89,20,000/- chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2018-19 had escaped assessment within

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

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

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

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

ITA 195/AGR/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

condoned by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, it was held by learned CIT(A) that the assessee cannot be granted foreign 3 | P a g e tax credit (FTC) . Thus, the appeal of the assessee stood dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal with the Tribunal, and the ld. Counsel for the assessee