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 194Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Nagpur100Chandigarh81Chennai32Mumbai25Bangalore22Pune22Jaipur17Delhi17Hyderabad16Kolkata13Ahmedabad8Cochin7Raipur7Surat6Rajkot5Visakhapatnam4Panaji3Lucknow3SC3Varanasi2Jodhpur2Karnataka1Cuttack1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(d)14Section 2637Section 80P7Section 1476Addition to Income5Deduction5Section 1484Section 194A3Section 143(3)3

THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 442/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 The Government Servants Co-Op. Credit I.T.O., Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Hindi Bhavan, Vadodara. Sanstha Vasahat Raopura, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aabat5146J

For Appellant: Shri Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr..D.R
Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)

condone the delay of 1226 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. Now we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit: 7. The only issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition

TDS3
Natural Justice3
Section 80P(4)2

ISPATAM METALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WAD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result all the grounds raised on merits of the addition made are dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DivetiaFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R
Section 250

delay in filing of present appeal of 69 days is condoned. 4. Taking up the appeal for adjudication the grounds raised read as under:- “1.1 The order passed by U/s. 250 passed on 09.09.2024 for AY 2018-19 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)" upholding the additions aggregating to Rs. 4,78,45,243/- made

VIJAY CREDIT AND SUPPLY CO. OP. SOCIETY,DHOLKA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and had claimed deduction under Section 80P of Rs. 79,59,325/-. 7. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed

THE ORCHID HEIGHTS CO.OP HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblethe Orchid Heights Co-Op Income Tax Officer, Vs. Housing Service Society Ward-3(3)(5), Limited, Ahmedabad. Applewood Township, Nr. Shantipura Circle, Ahmedabad-382210.. [Pan :Aagat8437 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M J Ranpura, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals:

For Appellant: Shri M J Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The ground of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another

THE DHANERA NAGARIK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Final Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Manthan Khokhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

condoning the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a credit Co- Operative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and taking deposits from its members. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 21.02.2018 declaring total income

MUKESH BATUBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 846/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

194A was deducted. On the basis of these information, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022. In the course of assessment, there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment ex-parte under Section

ARUNBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 1936/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

194A as mentioned in 26AS amounting to Rs.43,263/-.” 3. As per the information in the case of the assessee in accordance with Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT it was found that the assessee has not filed any return of income and has carried out various transactions as per the details. Subsequently notice under Section

M/S. B. NANJI A,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(12), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1858/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana
Section 40

delay of 124 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is accordingly condoned. 7. On merits, the learned AR submitted that the assessee has incurred interest expenses of Rs.50,78,412/- whereas the TDS has not been deducted only for an amount of Rs.15,00,681/- for the reasons that the depositors had furnished declaration obliged under s.197A