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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai131Karnataka102Chennai93Kolkata86Delhi77Chandigarh76Bangalore66Jaipur61Pune51Panaji38Ahmedabad36Cochin23Hyderabad16Indore16Lucknow11Surat9Amritsar8Nagpur8Rajkot6Cuttack6Varanasi5Visakhapatnam4Raipur4SC2Telangana2Guwahati2Calcutta2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 249(4)(b)12Section 143(1)9Section 2508Section 271F7Condonation of Delay6Section 114Cash Deposit4Exemption4Section 147

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 11Section 119Section 12(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

161 Taxmann.com 144 (Bom), where delay in filing audit report beyond due date was condoned because of auditors oversight in considering relevant provisions, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. (ii) ITO [2023] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj) wherein the Hon’ble High has held that where the assessee is a public charitable trust registered

3
Section 2493
Section 69A3
Addition to Income3

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

ITA 59/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 271F

delay of 80 days is condoned, in view of the bonafide reason of the medical ground and accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Pritpal Kaur v. ITO 4. The grounds raised are vague and not specific to issue. However, the assessee’s main grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly imposed penalty of Rs.5000

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 u/s 143(1

ABDUL HAMID NACHAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, RAJBAGH SRINAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

ITA 158/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tasir Ul Islam & Sh. Zubair Khan, Advs
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

1, Srinagar dated 18/05/2023 ( AY: 2016- 17), out of the order passed by NFAC (AU) dated 04/12/2023 (AY: 2018-19) and out 2 I.T.A. Nos. 158, 161 and 166/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 of order passed by NFAC) (AU) dated 05/12/2023 ( AY: 2019-20 ), respectively , all passed u/s 147 (r.w.s

ABDUL HAMID NACHAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, RAJBAGH SRINAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

ITA 166/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tasir Ul Islam & Sh. Zubair Khan, Advs
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

1, Srinagar dated 18/05/2023 ( AY: 2016- 17), out of the order passed by NFAC (AU) dated 04/12/2023 (AY: 2018-19) and out 2 I.T.A. Nos. 158, 161 and 166/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 of order passed by NFAC) (AU) dated 05/12/2023 ( AY: 2019-20 ), respectively , all passed u/s 147 (r.w.s

ABDUL HAMID NACHAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, RAJBAGH

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

ITA 161/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tasir Ul Islam & Sh. Zubair Khan, Advs
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

1, Srinagar dated 18/05/2023 ( AY: 2016- 17), out of the order passed by NFAC (AU) dated 04/12/2023 (AY: 2018-19) and out 2 I.T.A. Nos. 158, 161 and 166/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 of order passed by NFAC) (AU) dated 05/12/2023 ( AY: 2019-20 ), respectively , all passed u/s 147 (r.w.s

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

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