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 151Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai69Hyderabad26Mumbai19Pune13Ahmedabad8Kolkata7Delhi6Visakhapatnam5Lucknow5Surat3Bangalore3Jaipur3Rajkot2Chandigarh2Patna2Raipur2Amritsar1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 14716Section 144B16Section 270A16Section 271A16Section 272A(1)(d)16Section 1488Section 151A8Section 698Unexplained Investment

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2256/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming

8
Penalty8
Reassessment8
Addition to Income8

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2259/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2261/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2254/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2255/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2258/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2257/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2260/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming