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.

31 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 248clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai168Karnataka102Mumbai82Delhi81Kolkata60Jaipur37Bangalore36Calcutta36Ahmedabad31Cochin28Hyderabad28Pune27Chandigarh27Lucknow16Nagpur16Panaji15Raipur11Cuttack10Ranchi9Indore7Guwahati6Patna5Amritsar3Dehradun3Rajkot3Agra2Surat2Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income20Section 143(3)18Section 40A(9)12Section 92C10Deduction10Disallowance9Section 271(1)(c)8Section 687Transfer Pricing

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in in Law and in fact in passing the order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in haste and hurry disregarding facts of the case and without providing sufficient time

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 36(1)(iv)6
Section 366
Section 40A(2)(b)6

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in in Law and in fact in passing the order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in haste and hurry disregarding facts of the case and without providing sufficient time

DEEP MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) (1), BARODA

In the results, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1719/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1719/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Deep Muliplex P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(4) 9, Arunoday Society Baroda. Vs 2, Mangaljyot Apartment Alkapuri Baroda Pan : Aabck 4719 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8. In the appeal, the assessee has raised as many as five grounds, but sole issue involved in these grounds is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating the income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources” instead of “business income”. 9. Brief facts

THE ANKLAV MERCANTILE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,ANAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

ITA 685/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Preyashi Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 68Section 69Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

condoning delay in fulfilling appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating addition made U/s 68 of the Act by Ld. A.O. of Rs.8,17,68,248/- as unexplained cash credit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts not adjudicating addition made

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

248 : (1992) 19 ATC 219 : AIR 1992 SC 96] , Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse[(1997) 6 SCC 312] and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India [(2002) 3 SCC 722 : JT (2002) 3 SC 21] .)” 29. The language employed is simple. 31.12.2019 is the last date for the assessing officer to pass his order under Section

AMIT RAJNIKANT JOSHI,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

ITA 367/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.367/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amit Rajnikant Joshi The Dy.Cit बनाम/ C-29, Aryaman Bungalows Anand Nagar V/S. Opp. Anand Niketan School Prahaladnagar Road Thaltej, Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 05 Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmpj 6798 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Shrivastav, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

248/-. b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs.17,11,515/-. c. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs.27,00,000/-. d. Any other

SHRI SARDAR PATEL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KHAMBHAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

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

ITA 25/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80P

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sardar Patel Co-operative Credit Society Ltd vs ITO Page 2 of 5 2. There was delay of 248 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for delay. Shri Arvindbhai Somabhai Patel

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

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

SMT. SUMITRADEVI KAMALKUMAR AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1309/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1309/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Sumitradevi The Ito बनाम/ Kamalkumar Agrawal Ward-5(3)(2) V/S. C/O.Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Times Square-1 Opp. Ram Baug Bungalow Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaupa 5783 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

condone the said delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case culled out from the records are that the assessee filed her return of income on 25/06/2016 declaring total income of Rs.7,67,940/- during the year under consideration. On receipt of information from DCIT Central Circle – 1(1), Ahmedabad that the assessee

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 264/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

For Appellant: \nShri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: \nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

248/-, whereas the\ncorrect computation (based on DVO valuation) showed LTCG of\nRs.47,55,240/-.\n- The DVO report dated 26.12.2017 determined the indexed cost of\nacquisition at Rs.15,25,760/-, which was considered for capital gains\ncomputation.\n4. 1. In response to the remand report, the assessee filed a rejoinder,\nreiterating the following points:\n- The land sold

HASMUKHBHAI HANSRAJ PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1377/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(7) C-202, Suvas Residency Ahmedabad. Opp: Maghmalhar Society Nikol Road Ahmedabad 382350. Pan : Bpdpp 1078 Q

For Appellant: Shri Seem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

condoning delay in filing of the present appeal of 82, days in the interest of justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO has observed that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.1,00,20,500 in Navanagar Co- operative Bank Limited, Jamnagar. The AO has called for bank statement from the Bank by issuing

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., VADODARA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1886/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

248) E.L.T. 270] (v) SVM Cera Tea Limited v. CCE - [2013 (292) E.L.T. 580] 4 .. 5 .. 6. On the issue of clandestine removal of frit, based on the gas consumption of the main appellant, it is observed from Para 13.2 of the order-in-original dated 10-5-2011 that records maintained by main appellant show the gas consumption

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 23/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)

248) E.L.T. 270] (v) SVM Cera Tea Limited v. CCE - [2013 (292) E.L.T. 580] 4 .. 5 .. 6. On the issue of clandestine removal of frit, based on the gas consumption of the main appellant, it is observed from Para 13.2 of the order-in-original dated 10-5-2011 that records maintained by main appellant show the gas consumption

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 24/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)

248) E.L.T. 270] (v) SVM Cera Tea Limited v. CCE - [2013 (292) E.L.T. 580] 4 .. 5 .. 6. On the issue of clandestine removal of frit, based on the gas consumption of the main appellant, it is observed from Para 13.2 of the order-in-original dated 10-5-2011 that records maintained by main appellant show the gas consumption

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 25/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

248) E.L.T. 270] (v) SVM Cera Tea Limited v. CCE - [2013 (292) E.L.T. 580] 4 .. 5 .. 6. On the issue of clandestine removal of frit, based on the gas consumption of the main appellant, it is observed from Para 13.2 of the order-in-original dated 10-5-2011 that records maintained by main appellant show the gas consumption

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

ITA 805/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 837/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 457/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 834/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

ITA 806/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra