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.

11 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Surat33Cochin27Bangalore27Mumbai22Delhi21Karnataka21Chennai19Pune17Jaipur16Kolkata14Hyderabad13Ahmedabad11Lucknow10Nagpur8Indore7Chandigarh6Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Jodhpur4Calcutta3Jabalpur3Amritsar2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Guwahati1Varanasi1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 269S14Section 271D13Section 27I12Penalty11Section 272A(1)(d)7Natural Justice7Addition to Income7Section 1446Section 57

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1933/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 3Section 56

condonation is dismissed. Further, we do not find any merit in the special leave petition. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of." I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 5.1.8 In view

6
Section 686
Section 226
Exemption6

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1932/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 3Section 56

condonation is dismissed. Further, we do not find any merit in the special leave petition. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of." I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 5.1.8 In view

AIR WIND GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 274

273B of the Income Tax Act from filing the appeal within statutory time period. The rejection of delay condonation appeal is violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, no penalty is leviable. 6. The Lrd. CIT (A) has erred in law in passing the order is not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the genuine and bona

SMT. DEVIKABEN SHAILESH CHOKSHI L/H OF LATE SHAILESH RAMANLAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 951/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

section 273B of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 4. Smt. Devikaben Shailesh Chokshi (L/h. of Late Shailesh Ramanlal Chokshi) vs. JCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 30 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

CHUDAJI THAKOR,VASAJADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2049/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual who has not filed the Return of Income sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.75 lakhs and made cash deposit of Rs. 49 lakhs in his bank account with Bank of India during