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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai910Mumbai865Kolkata574Delhi476Pune394Hyderabad314Bangalore284Ahmedabad280Jaipur223Chandigarh181Cochin106Cuttack98Surat93Lucknow91Visakhapatnam88Karnataka88Raipur80Indore76Nagpur55Amritsar53Calcutta44Rajkot39Patna35Jodhpur24SC23Guwahati19Telangana17Allahabad14Panaji12Agra10Varanasi9Dehradun8Ranchi5Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)9Section 234C7Section 1446Addition to Income6Section 2505Section 2715Section 364Section 50C4Section 1474

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

loss of time, against the intimation dated 17-05-2019 served on 03-062019 has filed the present appeal on 04-03-2020 which clearly show the due diligence of the appellant in filing appeal. The delay in service of the rectified order is not attributable to the appellant. On identical facts Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Subhash Malik

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

Deduction3
Penalty3
Natural Justice3

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Loss Account for the impugned year recorded in the books of account maintained by the appellant. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law in making addition under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on mere presumption, surmises and conjectures without rejecting the explanation

AMAN SINGH SHEETGRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE TANDA, MANIA vs. ITO-1(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

ITA 20/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 270A

loss, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee company at the gross profit of Rs.38,17,073/- vide assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty of Rs.5,70,079/- u/s. 270A of the Act vide penalty order dated 29.12.2021. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeals against the aforesaid assessment order

AMAN SINGH SHEETGRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,DHOLPUR vs. ITO -1(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

ITA 18/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 270A

loss, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee company at the gross profit of Rs.38,17,073/- vide assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty of Rs.5,70,079/- u/s. 270A of the Act vide penalty order dated 29.12.2021. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeals against the aforesaid assessment order

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 348/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

condone the delay. 3. The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, both these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 347/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under: 4. The brief facts underappeal are that the assessee’s bank is carrying

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 347/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

condone the delay. 3. The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, both these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 347/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under: 4. The brief facts underappeal are that the assessee’s bank is carrying

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50C

delay caused in filing this second appeal stands condoned. 3. The brief facts state that the appellant assessee filed his return of Income for the year under consideration, declaring total Income at Rs. 5,24,040/- and worked out long term capital gain/loss of (-) 2,72,271/- on sale of two plots of land as under. 1) Land 03/12/2018 Value

RASHMITA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. ITO, GWALIOR

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

ITA 293/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Rashmita Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-47, Phase-3, Garden Homes, Ward-2(3), Alkapuri, Gwalior, Vs Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474001 Madhya Pradesh-474001 Pan-Agfps9495J Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148

condone the delay of 92 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case:- The Assessing Officer had AIR information that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.12,81,701/- in her saving bank account during the Financial Year 2008-09 relating to Assessment Year 2009-10 maintained with ICICI Bank Gwalior in account No.xxxxxxxx4641

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

AKHLESH KUMAR TIWARI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 370/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 54F

loss of Rs.51,050/- and on sale of second plot, he claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.7,33,457/-, claiming its deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee had invested Rs.25,85,000/- in purchase of new residential property. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice