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”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai114Chennai95Delhi94Kolkata94Bangalore73Jaipur72Hyderabad52Raipur45Chandigarh33Rajkot26Patna21Surat17Pune16Visakhapatnam16Ahmedabad10Nagpur8Indore7Lucknow7Cuttack7Cochin5Kerala4Panaji4SC3Jabalpur2Allahabad2Karnataka1Ranchi1Guwahati1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income8Section 143(3)7Survey u/s 133A7Section 1475Limitation/Time-bar5Condonation of Delay5Capital Gains5Disallowance5Section 133A

TAHERALI ZABUAWALA,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2439/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)

condone the delay in filing the appeal in the prescribed form 35.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 20.03.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.5,60,890/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer took note

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

4
Section 2634
Natural Justice4
Section 271C3

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 368/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 184Section 40ASection 68

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not treating the assessee’s status as AOP. A.Y. 2010-11 3 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee claimed itself a partnership firm

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 14/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 15/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 16/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS, VADODARA

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

delay in filing the first appeal be condoned and appeal be remanded in terms of Rule 28 of Income Tax Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 4 (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to Ld. CIT(A) NFAC for adjudication on merits.” 3. The assessee Company is engaged in manufacture and sale of Pesticides and Agrochemicals. A survey under Section 133A

SOMNATH ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 1293/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. I.T.A No. 1293/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 2 Somnath Associates vs. DCIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Real Estate Development and Construction of residential/commercial complexes

ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1961/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us. On Merits: 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 19.03.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.35,23,540/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1960/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us. On Merits: 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 19.03.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.35,23,540/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

NA ROTO MACHINE & MOULDS INDIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1349/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 147Section 148ASection 270A

Section 270A of the Act was received and thereafter the present appeal was filed. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 03.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1