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.

177 results for “condonation of delay”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,180Mumbai2,146Delhi1,409Kolkata1,353Bangalore977Hyderabad703Pune664Ahmedabad555Jaipur402Cochin320Patna279Nagpur272Surat271Chandigarh228Indore212Lucknow199Raipur195Karnataka191Visakhapatnam190Amritsar177Cuttack164Rajkot137Panaji104Calcutta75Agra66Guwahati59Jodhpur38SC32Jabalpur31Telangana29Allahabad28Varanasi22Dehradun18Ranchi7Kerala4Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14499Addition to Income86Section 250(6)55Condonation of Delay45Disallowance42Natural Justice42Depreciation34Section 25032Section 69A

BAHADUR KE TEXTILES & KNITWEAR ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 86/ASR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

condone the delay and admit the appeals on merits. 16. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 2 of the order of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) had ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 10 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT discussed aims and objects of the company

BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

Showing 1–20 of 177 · Page 1 of 9

...
27
Section 14827
Section 12A24
Cash Deposit24

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 501/ASR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

condone the delay and admit the appeals on merits. 16. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 2 of the order of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) had ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 10 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT discussed aims and objects of the company

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

business concern which is looked after by group of employees and battery of lawyers having knowledge of tax matters however, the DR failed to submit in rebuttal that what prejudice would be caused to the department by condoning the delay on account of mistaken belief, in view of the death of the assessee’s regular Chartered Accountant, Sh. Ravi

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,GARHSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, HOSIARPUR

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

ITA 27/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 69A

delay is hereby condoned. Appeal admitted on merits. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,83,070/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the year 2015-16 and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was served upon the assessee

SHRI GHULAM NABI DAND ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 88/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

income u/s 69A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No. 88/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 6. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority, by observing as follows: “Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 102/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 103/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH,VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 598/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 597/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 101/ASR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

WALIA CONSTRUCATION COMPANY ,PATHANKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 139/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of ld. ACIT Circle, Pathankot, (in brevity ‘the AO’) order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 139/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The appeal was filed with delay of 354 days. The assessee filed

SANT BABA BODHA NANAD GAUSHALLA COMMITTEE,MANSA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 257/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sant Baba Bodha Nand Gaushalla The Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh, Committee/Aop (Trust) C/O-J. K. Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-17-E, Gupta, Advocate 4702, Hospital Vs Chandigarh-160017 Bazar, Bathinda, (Punjab)-151005 Pan-Aaits0667H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri J. K. Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr

Section 10Section 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)

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 ld. 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

BASHARAT SALEEM REHTOO,SRINAGAR vs. DCIT, ACIT CENT. CIRCLE , SRINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The CIT(A); erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 700000/- made by the AO u/s 69A on account of cash found/ seized during the requisition u/s 132A on 03.12.2018. The order passed

PUNNU SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 35/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 144oSection 250(6)Section 250oSection 69A

business income surrendered by the assessee. I.T.A. No.35/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 9. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the AO for application of section 115BBE on the cash deposited and credit entries by invoking section 69A. That the provisions of section 69A can be invoked only when whole of such alleged money, bullion

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

delay of 93 ( ninety three ) days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. The Addl./JCIT(A) has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of DDIT CPC, Bangalore

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. 4. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. The addition was made for delayed payment of PF and ESI amount of Rs. 4,16,169/-before the close of the financial year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 appeal before

M/S. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERSW,BARAZULA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 712/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

condone the delay of 579 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits and we also note that it is a case where neglect on the part of the assessee cannot be overlooked and we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where costs should be imposed and as such, we impose a token cost

M/S. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 600/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

condone the delay of 579 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits and we also note that it is a case where neglect on the part of the assessee cannot be overlooked and we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where costs should be imposed and as such, we impose a token cost

HITESH SINGLA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 663/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

condoning the delay. 7.1 We also take note of the fact that there is a minor addition of Rs.2,02,500/- (Rs.2.02 lakh) which has flown from the fact that the SBN note has been deposited during demonetisation period as per information gather from banker’s. We also find that the total turnover disclosed by the assessee at Rs.57.82 lakhs

SHRI MANJIT SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , DASUYA

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

ITA 132/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

delay for 17 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that there is no power of attorney with the appeal petition. Mr. K. Bhagat, CA for the assessee filed an adjournment petition before the bench and mentioned that senior counsel who will attend the case