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.

153 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 83clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna490Chennai399Mumbai394Delhi389Kolkata272Hyderabad208Pune173Bangalore164Ahmedabad153Karnataka124Chandigarh119Jaipur112Nagpur100Cochin79Surat62Indore62Cuttack54Calcutta41Lucknow38Rajkot38Panaji36Amritsar28Visakhapatnam23Raipur20Agra15Guwahati12SC11Ranchi7Varanasi6Jabalpur6Telangana5Jodhpur3Allahabad3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income51Section 143(3)44Disallowance43Section 1142Section 14729Section 14428Section 3728Section 26326Section 132

SMT. NEELU SANJAY GUPTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, The Dy. Cit, Vs. 9Th Floor, Cambay Grand Hotel, Central Circle-2(2), S.G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Adypg 0351 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

delay filed by the assessee. Smt Neelu Sanjay Gupta Vs. DCIT AY : 2013-14 2 3. Before proceeding to deal with the condonation application, it is necessary to bring out a brief background of the case before us. In the impugned case, assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, making addition of loans and advances allegedly received

Showing 1–20 of 153 · Page 1 of 8

...
25
Section 14825
Deduction25
Penalty22

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)

condoning the delay. 24. On the question of perversity of the decision of the Tribunal we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28. In that judgment, it was noted that only a question of law can be referred for decision of the Court and the decision

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

delay in filing the present appeal is accordingly condoned. 8. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us on merit. 7 9. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as they are a blend of descriptive and argumentative contents.In fact,these

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)

condone the delay of 1226 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. Now we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit: 7. The only issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

ITA 27/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

condoned in both the appeals, and whether they are required to be remitted back for adjudication on merit. 3. The facts on all vital points are common therefore, for the facility of reference, we take up the facts from quantum appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company at the relevant time was manufacturing copper tubes

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

ITA 28/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

condoned in both the appeals, and whether they are required to be remitted back for adjudication on merit. 3. The facts on all vital points are common therefore, for the facility of reference, we take up the facts from quantum appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company at the relevant time was manufacturing copper tubes

GYANDEEP CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU NOW THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2021-2022 Gyandeep Charitable Trust, A.D.I.T, A/204, Ashutosh Apt., Vs. Cpc, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Bengaluru, Naranpura, Now Ahmedabad-380013. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Pan: Aactg0352M Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

83,230.00 dated 8-1-2022 However, while Asstt. Year 2021-2022 2 processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was denied and the income was assessed at Rs. 2,68,841.00 only. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same while observing

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

83 Taxmann.com 78 (Gujarat). It is seen that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was relied upon by the appellant before the AO, as stated on Page 10 of the assessment order, yet the AO has not dealt with this judgement in his orders, though he has himself relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT decision in AUDA case, which

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

83 Taxmann.com 78 (Gujarat). It is seen that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was relied upon by the appellant before the AO, as stated on Page 10 of the assessment order, yet the AO has not dealt with this judgement in his orders, though he has himself relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT decision in AUDA case, which

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

83 Taxmann.com 78 (Gujarat). It is seen that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was relied upon by the appellant before the AO, as stated on Page 10 of the assessment order, yet the AO has not dealt with this judgement in his orders, though he has himself relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT decision in AUDA case, which

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

83 Taxmann.com 78 (Gujarat). It is seen that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was relied upon by the appellant before the AO, as stated on Page 10 of the assessment order, yet the AO has not dealt with this judgement in his orders, though he has himself relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT decision in AUDA case, which

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

83 Taxmann.com 78 (Gujarat). It is seen that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was relied upon by the appellant before the AO, as stated on Page 10 of the assessment order, yet the AO has not dealt with this judgement in his orders, though he has himself relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT decision in AUDA case, which

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

83 Taxmann.com 78 (Gujarat). It is seen that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was relied upon by the appellant before the AO, as stated on Page 10 of the assessment order, yet the AO has not dealt with this judgement in his orders, though he has himself relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT decision in AUDA case, which

REAL CARGO MUMBAI,ARVALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Divatia ,Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 189(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 254Section 40

83 days beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT-DR fairly submitted that the matter is left to the discretion of the Bench, although the department has objection to the aforesaid delay. One of the reasons for the delay as averred by the assessee in its application for delay in filing this appeal

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)

83,04,780/- and penalty proceedings were also initiated. 4. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that it was filed with an inordinate delay of 242 days beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order under section 144 read with section 144B

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1605/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 263Section 37Section 69C

condonation of delay of 83 days in filing the present appeal. The said application is supported by a duly sworn affidavit of Ms. Dimple Arvindbhai Modi, Director of the assessee-company, explaining the reasons for the delay. 4. On perusal of the application and the affidavit, it is noticed that the impugned order under section

SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR JIVANLAL SHAH,,KADI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, KADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1251/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1251/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.R
Section 144Section 253(5)

83,960/- and income from other sources amounting to Rs. 1,42,772/- without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant to defend his case. The appellant thus humbly states that the appeal be set-aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in the interest of natural justice and equity.” 3. When the matter

MINESH BIPINBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 650/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.23/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 & Asstt.Year 2016-17 Minesh Bipinbhai Patel The Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 10, Shantivan Society Vs. Race Course Sussen Tarsali Road Vadodara. Makarpura Vadodara 390 010. Pan : Acqpp 7756 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR and Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

delay of 153 days in filing both the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 For A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee had originally filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs.1

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 644/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Royअपीलसं./Ita No.644/Ahd/2017 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 State Bank Of India, I.T.O, Zonal Administrative Office, Tds-4, Vs. Ahmedabad C N Vidhyalaya Campus, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &
Section 192Section 201(1)Section 253(5)

delay is condoned. 5. The brief facts relating to this case is this that some of the employees of the appellant’s bank in the administrative section of SM Road, Ahmedabad has visited foreign countries and claimed exemption of LTC/LFC, u/s.192 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. It was further found that during the financial year

DASRATHSINH GHANSHYAMSINH CHUDASAMA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-6, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 68

83) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act should have been made addition in consonance of Section 68 of the Act and thereby the tax should have been calculated as per Section 115BBE of the Act which the Assessing Officer failed to do so and, therefore