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.

68 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 227clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka172Mumbai116Ahmedabad68Delhi54Chennai45Bangalore43Kolkata35Chandigarh31Jaipur26Hyderabad20Pune15Surat14Cuttack12Visakhapatnam8Cochin8Indore7Guwahati6Rajkot6Raipur6Amritsar5Lucknow5Allahabad4Nagpur4SC2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 13244Deduction16Addition to Income15Penalty15Section 27I12Exemption11Section 2210Section 1489Section 115B

KARMA RECRUITMENTS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2083/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: The Cit(A) But Without Any Success. Learned Cit(A) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee By Observing As Follows:-

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 239Section 239(1)(c)

227 (Kar)] wherein it has been, inter alia, observed as follows:- “23. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also brought to the notice of the Court section 119(2)(b) of the Act and submits that unless the petitioner files an application for refund before the Board and the Board directs for processing the return after condoning the delay

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

9
Section 1546
Section 271D6
Section 1446

KARMA RECRUITMENTS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2082/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Cit(A) But Without Any Success. Learned Cit(A) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee By Observing As Follows:-

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 239Section 239(1)(c)

227 (Kar)] wherein it has been, inter alia, observed as follows:- “23. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also brought to the notice of the Court section 119(2)(b) of the Act and submits that unless the petitioner files an application for refund before the Board and the Board directs for processing the return after condoning the delay

RD DYNAMECH INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 863/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 154Section 5

227-230, Abhishek Vs Vadodara Complex, Akshar Chowk, Old Padra Road Vadodara-390020 PAN: AADCR0384C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 25-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-06-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

227/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide details of one party namely, Shriram Lakhan Sharma from whom the assessee had accepted Rs. 2,80,000/- in cash but the assessee neither provided the PAN No. of such party and nor the address details. In absence thereof, the ld. Assessing Officer added

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

227/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide details of one party namely, Shriram Lakhan Sharma from whom the assessee had accepted Rs. 2,80,000/- in cash but the assessee neither provided the PAN No. of such party and nor the address details. In absence thereof, the ld. Assessing Officer added

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2771/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

227/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide details of one party namely, Shriram Lakhan Sharma from whom the assessee had accepted Rs. 2,80,000/- in cash but the assessee neither provided the PAN No. of such party and nor the address details. In absence thereof, the ld. Assessing Officer added

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

227/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide details of one party namely, Shriram Lakhan Sharma from whom the assessee had accepted Rs. 2,80,000/- in cash but the assessee neither provided the PAN No. of such party and nor the address details. In absence thereof, the ld. Assessing Officer added

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

227/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide details of one party namely, Shriram Lakhan Sharma from whom the assessee had accepted Rs. 2,80,000/- in cash but the assessee neither provided the PAN No. of such party and nor the address details. In absence thereof, the ld. Assessing Officer added

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

227/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide details of one party namely, Shriram Lakhan Sharma from whom the assessee had accepted Rs. 2,80,000/- in cash but the assessee neither provided the PAN No. of such party and nor the address details. In absence thereof, the ld. Assessing Officer added

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. CIT,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 11. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the unutilized MODVAT credit of Rs. 20,30,909/- as income of the assessee. 12. The facts in brief are that

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 11. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the unutilized MODVAT credit of Rs. 20,30,909/- as income of the assessee. 12. The facts in brief are that

MANSHA TEXTILE PVT LTD.,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, VDAODARA

ITA 226/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 274

227 & 228/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mansha Textile Pvt. Ltd. ITO, 1, Vikram Society, Gotri Ward-2(1)(1), Road, Vadodara-390020 Vs Baroda PAN: AADCM0191J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER

MANSHA TEXTILE PVT LTD.,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, VDAODARA

ITA 225/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 274

227 & 228/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mansha Textile Pvt. Ltd. ITO, 1, Vikram Society, Gotri Ward-2(1)(1), Road, Vadodara-390020 Vs Baroda PAN: AADCM0191J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER

MANSHA TEXTILE PVT LTD.,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 224/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 274

227 & 228/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mansha Textile Pvt. Ltd. ITO, 1, Vikram Society, Gotri Ward-2(1)(1), Road, Vadodara-390020 Vs Baroda PAN: AADCM0191J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER

MANSHA TEXTILE PVT LTD.,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, VDAODARA

ITA 228/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 274

227 & 228/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mansha Textile Pvt. Ltd. ITO, 1, Vikram Society, Gotri Ward-2(1)(1), Road, Vadodara-390020 Vs Baroda PAN: AADCM0191J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER

MANSHA TEXTILE PVT LTD.,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, VDAODARA

ITA 227/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 274

227 & 228/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mansha Textile Pvt. Ltd. ITO, 1, Vikram Society, Gotri Ward-2(1)(1), Road, Vadodara-390020 Vs Baroda PAN: AADCM0191J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER

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

227/ relevant to the asst. years 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively. 2.2. The Ld AO rejected the above claim made by the assessee, on the ground that the claim was neither made in the Original Return of Income nor in the Revised Return of Income filed by the assessee. However, on appeal against the above assessment order before

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

227/ relevant to the asst. years 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively. 2.2. The Ld AO rejected the above claim made by the assessee, on the ground that the claim was neither made in the Original Return of Income nor in the Revised Return of Income filed by the assessee. However, on appeal against the above assessment order before

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development