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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 135clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka100Chennai92Mumbai81Bangalore68Delhi67Ahmedabad65Kolkata59Hyderabad43Calcutta40Jaipur37Amritsar32Surat25Nagpur20Pune20Lucknow12Indore9Agra9Cuttack6SC5Cochin5Chandigarh5Raipur5Varanasi4Jabalpur4Visakhapatnam2Allahabad2Orissa2Patna2Rajkot2Telangana2Panaji1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)6Section 36(1)(va)5Section 139(1)3Section 1392Section 22Section 43B2Section 2(24)(x)2Disallowance2

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

135 taxman.com 248 (Banglore-Trib.) At the outset, it is pertinent to submit that no details/evidences have been furnished by the Ld. AR alongwith his written submission (04 pages- received through email yesterday) to show the exact dates on which the sum(s) in question were actually deposited to the PF accounts’. Even the audit report (from