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.

1,494 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 5(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai4,146Mumbai3,999Delhi3,259Kolkata2,189Pune1,852Bangalore1,681Ahmedabad1,494Hyderabad1,228Jaipur968Patna740Surat649Cochin605Chandigarh580Indore558Nagpur521Visakhapatnam451Raipur411Lucknow404Rajkot348Amritsar330Cuttack313Karnataka301Panaji201Agra160Calcutta125Guwahati121Dehradun105Jodhpur98Allahabad82Jabalpur65SC63Ranchi61Telangana48Varanasi37Andhra Pradesh17Rajasthan11Orissa10Kerala7Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 12A57Addition to Income53Penalty38Condonation of Delay34Natural Justice32Section 12A(1)(ac)31Limitation/Time-bar31Section 14829Exemption

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1022/AHD/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 292BSection 69

Showing 1–20 of 1,494 · Page 1 of 75

...
29
Section 14728
Section 3727
Section 271(1)(c)25

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11[2

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11[2

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11[2

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11[2

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11[2

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11[2

THE NA vs. ARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,NAVSARIVS.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 435/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024

Bench: 30.09.2022 As It Has Already Commenced 06.03.2004 Activities On 06-03-2022. 2. The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Has Erred In Facts & In Law In Rejecting The Application Under Section 80G (5) For The Reason That The Trust University Has Made Application For Final Registration Within The Validity Of Provisional Registration & That The Provisional Registration Is Valid Till Ay 2025-26. 3. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law, The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Erred In Rejecting Assessee'S Application U/S 80G(5) Filed On 28.03.2023 On The Ground That Assessee Didn'T File The Application Before 30.09.2022 When The Assessee Has Filed The Application In Time As Per The Extension Granted Till 30.09.2023 As Per Circular No.6/2023 Dated 29-05-2023

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-D.R
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

condone delay in filing form No 10AB for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter on delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal” I.T.A No. 435/Ahd/2024 A.Y. N.A. Page No. 3 The Navsari Agricultural University vs. CIT (E) 3. The brief facts

CLEAN TEETH CLEAN MOUTH CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/AHD/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Darshak M Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

condoned the delay in removal of defect, which he was empowered to do in terms of Section 139(9) of the Act. In view of the above, all the arguments of the ld. DR are rejected, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 20. Since we have quashed the assessment order finding the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2

TATAM SEVA SANSTHAN,BHAVNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMEPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 798/AHD/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this

GROW FOUNDATION GANDHINAGAR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 9

ITA 734/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri H Phani, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri H Phani, CIT. DR
Section 10Section 80Section 80FSection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

NANA AND RANDER SUNNI VOHRA MEDICAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (EXEMPTION ) AHMEDABAD, AHMRDABAD

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

ITA 1000/AHD/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Himali Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

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

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

ADANI EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 859/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Fr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R
Section 80Section 80G

delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the as per the CIT(E), the application in Form No. 10AB under Section 80G(5

ADANI KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 860/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Fr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R
Section 80Section 80G

delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the as per the CIT(E), the application in Form No. 10AB under Section 80G(5

SHRI VAJAPUR PATIDAR CO. OPARATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, PATAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 27/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 27/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Vajapur Patidar Co. Operative Credit I.T.O., Society Limited, Vs. Ward-5, At. Vijapaur Po. Sanghpur, Patan. Ta. Vijapaur, Dist. Mehsana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr.D.R
Section 80P(2)(d)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee on merit. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 203120/- on the amount of interest received from Co.Op Banks without appreciating facts that

TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES BARODA LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 166/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 3

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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)

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that

BHURABHAI PUNJABHAI PARSANA FOUNDATION,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION) , AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

ITA 428/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Pala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 12ASection 80(5)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this