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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna305Chennai281Mumbai138Delhi122Karnataka102Kolkata86Ahmedabad84Bangalore83Hyderabad81Jaipur60Pune43Chandigarh36Calcutta34Nagpur27Surat23Indore22Lucknow18Rajkot13Visakhapatnam11Amritsar10Cochin8Cuttack8Varanasi7Kerala6Panaji6Allahabad6Guwahati5Raipur5Jodhpur4SC3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Rajasthan1Telangana1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 12A20Section 2508Section 69A5Section 105Addition to Income5Condonation of Delay5Section 250(6)4Section 1504Section 44A

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

section 12A of the Act, before new incumbent commissioner. This would help the assessee to explain his correct and detailed facts to new incumbent commission. Fresh application advised to be filed with the expectation that commissioner might appreciate the case of the assessee with elaborated explanation w.r.t. facts and law. Accordingly, the assessee e-filed fresh application, on 30.11.2018, seeking

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

4
Exemption4
Section 1483
Reopening of Assessment2

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

section 12A of the Act, before new incumbent commissioner. This would help the assessee to explain his correct and detailed facts to new incumbent commission. Fresh application advised to be filed with the expectation that commissioner might appreciate the case of the assessee with elaborated explanation w.r.t. facts and law. Accordingly, the assessee e-filed fresh application, on 30.11.2018, seeking

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)

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

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

BIKRAM MASIH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 569/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)
Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

150, Abadi Rori, Ward-2(1), Amritsar Majitha, Tehsil Amritsar Punjab 143601 [PAN: AGVPM 8144L] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : None (Adjournment application) : Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

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

150/- on account of cash deposited in the bank-account of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee files this appeal. 3. That the assessee requests to add or amend the grounds 'of appeal before the same is heard or disposed off.” 3. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 17 days. The assessee filed the petition for condonation

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

SHRI ABDUL HAMID MIR,KUPWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 266/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A
Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 28Section 44ASection 69A

section 250(4) and 250(5) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has acted in contravention of the law while dismissing the case on account of: 1. REF-Point 5.5-Page o5 of order u/s 250 “5.5. After going through the facts of the case, it was observed that during the year under consideration the appellant was engaged