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.

31 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 12(1)(ac)clear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad126Mumbai117Karnataka109Pune104Chennai100Kolkata90Ahmedabad73Delhi70Chandigarh61Jaipur48Calcutta34Amritsar31Bangalore30Surat26Rajkot14Indore13SC9Panaji4Nagpur4Patna4Agra3Cochin3Rajasthan3Visakhapatnam3Orissa2Jabalpur2Guwahati2Raipur2Telangana2Lucknow2Jodhpur2Dehradun1Himachal Pradesh1Cuttack1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A54Section 14427Section 12A8Section 12A(1)(ac)5Exemption4Condonation of Delay4

CHINTPURANI MANDIR ( BRAHAM AKHARA) PARBHANDAK COMMITTEE,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIOPNS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 683/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Vatta, C. A
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

condone the delay of 18 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable society registered under the ‘Societies Registration Act’, w.e.f. 6th Oct., 2000 and has been carrying on various charitable activities since inception as per objects contained in its memorandum and has been provisionally

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

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the assesseee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act in an arbitrary manner. 2. The Ld. CIT (E) has erred in not giving

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 583/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 584/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPURCANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 585/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 320/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 321/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 322/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 323/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 324/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 325/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 326/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SH. BALWINDER SINGH KOHLI,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 86/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SHRI ARUN NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 436/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SHRI ARUN NARULA,AMRITAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 437/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SHRI.RAVI NARULA,FEROZPUR vs. DEPUTY.COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 611/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SHRI. RAVI NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 612/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SHRI RAVI NARULA ,FEROZE PUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 613/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SHRI RAVI NARULA ,FEROZPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 614/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned

SHRI RAVI NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 615/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 153A

AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1966] 1 WLR 1402, referred to.116” Also respectfully relied on in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (SC), Criminal Appeal No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: “139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned