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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 159clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai109Mumbai108Kolkata108Karnataka102Delhi81Jaipur75Ahmedabad72Bangalore50Hyderabad39Panaji35Nagpur25Pune20Visakhapatnam19Cuttack17Chandigarh16Lucknow14Patna10Cochin9Surat9Rajkot8Indore7Amritsar7Jodhpur6Agra5Guwahati4SC3Jabalpur2Rajasthan1Allahabad1Calcutta1Andhra Pradesh1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 12A25Section 2(15)15Section 25Section 2502Section 80P2Section 562Section 1472Section 1482

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

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

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

condone and the ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to admit the appeal for hearing on merits. In support of his contention, the assessee has placed reliance on a number of judicial decisions in the case of “Esha Bhattacharya” in Civil Appeal No. 8183-8184 of 2013 (SC), the Hon’ble Tribunal Amritsar in the case of Gurfateh Filsm

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

ITA 593/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.3 However, we find that negligence on the part of the Secretary of the assessee society and his counsel cannot be ruled out and this is a fit case for imposition of costs and considering the fact that the appellant is an agricultural Multipurpose cooperative society, we impose

THE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA 162/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)
Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA 159/ASR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)
Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA 160/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)
Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,BATHINDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA 141/ASR/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2018

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)
Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA 161/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)
Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only