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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai191Chennai132Kolkata125Karnataka123Delhi110Jaipur87Chandigarh75Ahmedabad73Bangalore69Pune47Hyderabad41Calcutta36Surat28Cuttack24Lucknow23Indore21Cochin21Nagpur16Patna14Jodhpur11Raipur10Rajkot9Amritsar9Visakhapatnam6SC5Allahabad4Agra3Varanasi3Dehradun3Telangana3Panaji2Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 153A20Section 26316Section 6813Condonation of Delay9Section 271D8Addition to Income7Section 143(3)6Section 145(3)6Section 269S

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

section 263 which was neither in the knowledge of the assessee or in the knowledge of its counsel Mr. Mahesh Chander Khungar, Adv. which consequently resulted in delay of 967 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He contended that the issue has been pointed out to the appellant by his newly appointed counsel Mr. Anil

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

6
Natural Justice5
Section 250(6)4
Search & Seizure4

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

section 263 which was neither in the knowledge of the assessee or in the knowledge of its counsel Mr. Mahesh Chander Khungar, Adv. which consequently resulted in delay of 967 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He contended that the issue has been pointed out to the appellant by his newly appointed counsel Mr. Anil

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 641/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv
Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

condone the delay of 253 days, in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 15.01.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

condone the delay, and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of hire purchase financing of tourist vehicles and loans are advanced to small tour operators and taxi drivers, for purchase of vehicles, who are located mainly in the state of Jammu

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

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

ITA 622/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in Form No. 36 are as follows (which is not concise in terms of Rule – 8 of ITAT Rules ’63): “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 232/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 235/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 234/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated

M/S OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 233/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated