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.

209 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(25)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai654Mumbai549Delhi515Kolkata382Pune322Hyderabad318Bangalore281Jaipur213Ahmedabad209Karnataka171Chandigarh132Raipur120Nagpur109Amritsar89Surat88Indore71Panaji67Visakhapatnam55Cuttack52Cochin51Lucknow44Rajkot39Calcutta37SC33Guwahati15Patna15Telangana14Varanasi12Jodhpur10Agra8Allahabad8Kerala5Rajasthan4Orissa3Dehradun2Jabalpur2Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income49Section 12A44Section 143(3)39Section 14734Disallowance30Section 14828Deduction27Section 115B24Exemption

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

Showing 1–20 of 209 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Section 13223
Section 1122
Section 143(1)20

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

ii) Operating Profits Rs.822571 Lacs (iii) Percentage of operating margin on cost : 39.07% ITA No.204/Ahd/2013 with C.O.No.45/Ahd/2015 and 7 others A.Y. 2008-09 7 8. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee’s reasonable profit in the eligible transaction is restricted to 25% and the balance of 962.33% is considered

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

ii) that disallowances of all the deductions claimed u/s.11 may kindly be deleted fully. (iii) that the income of the Appellant may kindly be held taxable at normal rate applicable to the Appellant. 9. The Appellant prays to reserve the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts

GROW FOUNDATION GANDHINAGAR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 9

ITA 734/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri H Phani, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri H Phani, CIT. DR
Section 10Section 80Section 80FSection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

ii) Rental income Rs.17,41,119/-. (iii) Interest income Rs. 14,90,03,857/-. (iv) Fees for technical/ professional services Rs.1,34,29,294/-. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 270A of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant, and therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

ii) Rental income Rs.17,41,119/-. (iii) Interest income Rs. 14,90,03,857/-. (iv) Fees for technical/ professional services Rs.1,34,29,294/-. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 270A of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant, and therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

ii) Rental income Rs.17,41,119/-. (iii) Interest income Rs. 14,90,03,857/-. (iv) Fees for technical/ professional services Rs.1,34,29,294/-. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 270A of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant, and therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

ii) Rental income Rs.17,41,119/-. (iii) Interest income Rs. 14,90,03,857/-. (iv) Fees for technical/ professional services Rs.1,34,29,294/-. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 270A of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant, and therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

ii) Rental income Rs.17,41,119/-. (iii) Interest income Rs. 14,90,03,857/-. (iv) Fees for technical/ professional services Rs.1,34,29,294/-. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 270A of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant, and therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

MSK PROJECT (INDIA) JV LTD. CO.(MERGED WITH MADHAV INFRA PROJECT LTD),VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

25-02-2010 Order passed u der section 263 53-56 26-02-2010 Order giving effect to the order u/s 263 57 21-7-2011 Supreme Court setting aside High Court Order 215-243 10-2-2012 Supplied to Assessee 12-3-2012 Appeal filed before CIT(A)III, Baroda 9-8-2012 Appeal dismissed

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 639/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri SudhankarVerma, Sr. D.R
Section 41(1)

ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (iii) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1580/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri SudhankarVerma, Sr. D.R
Section 41(1)

ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (iii) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

25-11-1981 and Final registration u/s. 12AB of the Act was granted to the Assessee Trust vide order dated 06-04-2022 for the assessment years 2022-23 to 2024-25. Similarly, Provisional registration u/s. 80G was granted on 13-05-2022. However, the assessee failed to file final registration under 80G(5) within six months period

SMT. NEELU SANJAY GUPTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, The Dy. Cit, Vs. 9Th Floor, Cambay Grand Hotel, Central Circle-2(2), S.G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Adypg 0351 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

ii) for not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing; (iii) for not appreciating the fact that all her records were lying with CID, Gujarat. (iv) on merits in confirming the addition of Rs.6,83,40,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 6. The grounds of appeal raised are as under:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred

MADAN LAL GROVER,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2204/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 10

section (i) & (ii) both are at par & since it is clear that as per explanatory memorandum that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this notification. Thus sec 10(10AA)(i) & (ii) both are at par (with RETROSPECTIVE effect & even the private employee on retirement are entitled for such higher limit of Rs. 25