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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 198clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai110Karnataka105Delhi69Bangalore66Kolkata63Chennai59Chandigarh58Pune39Jaipur38Calcutta36Lucknow22Surat22Hyderabad19Cuttack12Indore7Visakhapatnam6Cochin6Ahmedabad6Ranchi5Guwahati5Patna5Nagpur3SC3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Rajkot1Raipur1Amritsar1Allahabad1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 685Section 904Addition to Income4Section 1483Section 115B3Penalty3Section 452Section 142(1)2Section 69

LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1626/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: \nSmt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69

section 115BBE of\nthe Act.\n\n8. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are\nunjustified.\n\n9. Initiation of penalty u/s 271F is unjustified.\n\n10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.\"\n\n5. The appeal is filed belatedly before us by a delay of 198\ndays. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that

2
Section 234A2
Transfer Pricing2
Double Taxation/DTAA2

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1517/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

delay of 32 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and now take up the appeal for adjudication. 10. Shri Soumitra Choudhary Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the TDS certificate was received by the Assessee from China only in September 2009, hence it was not possible for the Assessee to claim tax credit

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1621/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

delay of 32 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and now take up the appeal for adjudication. 10. Shri Soumitra Choudhary Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the TDS certificate was received by the Assessee from China only in September 2009, hence it was not possible for the Assessee to claim tax credit

PARVATBHAI BARIA,GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, GODHRA, GUJARAT

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

ITA 1583/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1583/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Parvatbhai Baria, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. 818, Vavdi Gam, Ward-1, Dahod Highway, Godhra. Vavdi Buzurg, Panchmahal-389001. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Abbas Gulamhusianwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 45

section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted his reply dated 03.03.2023, stating that he, along with five co-owners, had sold an immovable property to Shri Jigneshkumar A. Shah vide Banakhat/Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.2018 for a consideration of Rs. 3,54,28,320/-. However, the registered sale deed was executed later on 21.10.2020 for a consideration

ZARINABEN RAHIMBHAI KALAVATAR,MAHUVA vs. ACIT, WARD-2(4), BHAVNAGAR

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

ITA 1515/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

198/- showing in the current year under scrutiny. The return for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 were not filed. The due date for filing returns was 31.07.2015 but the return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was also filed after due date i.e. on 27.03.2017 (post demonetization). The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,41,845/- under Section

TEJAS C. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE 2(2) (PRESENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 912/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 912/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Tejas C Joshi Dy. Commissioner Of 9A, Santosa Park Society, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Aadiraj Bunglow, Central Circle 5(3), Iskon Ambli Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (Original Ahmedabad - 380058 Jurisdiction) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (Present Jurisdiction) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4735G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 22/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb
Section 56(2)(vii)

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.45,46,760/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had purchased a land during the year vide sale deed dated