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.

109 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai777Delhi700Mumbai557Kolkata339Pune253Bangalore220Surat200Hyderabad195Ahmedabad168Jaipur159Karnataka145Indore131Chandigarh121Raipur114Amritsar109Nagpur103Panaji77Visakhapatnam66Cochin65Lucknow57Cuttack48Calcutta38Rajkot36Jodhpur32SC28Varanasi19Patna17Telangana17Allahabad14Guwahati10Jabalpur8Dehradun6Rajasthan6Orissa3Agra2Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 14490Addition to Income79Section 25069Section 250(6)48Section 14844Condonation of Delay44Natural Justice42Disallowance39Section 147

DERA SWAMI JAGAT GIRI TRUST ( REGD),PATHANKOT vs. COMMISSIONER ODF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assesse society is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 118/ASR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri P. N . Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Gautam, CIT(D.R.)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 192

sections 11 and 12 derived excluding Voluntary Contribution 7337939” Thus the Ld CIT(E) should not have doubted the audit date because the audit report is also dated 22/02/2018 which was also uploaded with the department on 18/02/2020 i.e. before 31/03/2020. (iv) That the Ld. CIT(E) miserably failed to appreciate that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was ever

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1`, JALANDHAR

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6

38
Depreciation34
Section 26325
Cash Deposit25

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 644/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 646/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 645/ASR/2019[20103-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

AMANDIP SIINGH,HOUSE NO. NEAR NEHAR PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD , TARN TARAN SARHALI ROAD

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

ITA 414/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 221(1)Section 250

Section 148A of the IT Act and further in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 05.05.2022 in the case of M/s Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune & Ors. the AO cancelled the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 31.03.2022 in the case of the assessee vide

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

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

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

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

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

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

condone the delay of 180 Days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible.” 7. Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on various grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and one of the main grievance of the assessee is that he has not been

MESERS PEER PANCHAL EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST ,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 598/ASR/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 10Section 12A

condone the delay of 2 days in my case.” 3.1 Since, there was a short delay of 2 days in filing the appeal 4. The appellant filed an application in form No. 10A in the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to “the PCIT”), on 31.03.2018 seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Income

MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS )CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 343/ASR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. A.K. Periwal, C.A
Section 10

condone the delay: (i) MANOJ AHUJA (MINOR) & ANR. vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, reported in 150 ITR 696. (ii) Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions (P) Ltd. Vs CIT, reported in 95 ITR (Trib.) 0456 (Amritsar) 5 I.T.A. No.343/Asr/2024 Maharishi Dayanand Education Society v. CIT (iii) C.G. PAUL & CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1TAT, COCHIN BENCH, reported

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 643/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 147Section 148

condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021. The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions 16. were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated

HEMOPHILLA SOCIETY OF KASHMIR,SRINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal against the rejection for registration u/s 80G(5), is also

ITA 209/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C. A
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

section 282 of the Act 61 (read with Rule 127 of IT Rules 62). Apart from notices issued in ITBA Portal, the notice issued through speed post is stated by the assessee to have not been received (without any specific reasons). Moreover, we find that the notice issued by the Ld CIT (E) dated 26th 10. September, 2023, has been

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

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 289/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

10. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and documents produced before us in the paper book, and we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be best served if the matter is remanded to the files of the Ld CIT(A) for adjudication on the grounds of appeal contained in form