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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 166clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka104Chennai94Mumbai85Delhi82Hyderabad72Kolkata45Chandigarh40Panaji36Jaipur34Bangalore32Lucknow28Visakhapatnam23Pune21Ahmedabad20Raipur15Cochin14Rajkot12Nagpur11Telangana8Indore7Surat6Patna6Guwahati5Cuttack5Calcutta5Amritsar4Orissa1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1544Section 143(3)3Section 69A3Section 1482Section 148(1)2Section 1492Condonation of Delay2Addition to Income2

GURPREET SINGH KHURANA,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 539/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 263

condoning the delay of 166 days." 7. While holding so, the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. A copy of this order of Hon'ble Apex Court, for kind perusal of the Bench, is enclosed as Appendix A for kind . 8. It is also clarified that in this case, initially assessee paid appeal

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 2026
AY 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

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 144Section 154

condonation application dated 11.10.2016 explains the delay as on account of the assessee having moved an application u/s. 154 before the ld. CIT(A) immediately on the receipt of the impugned order on 04.04.2016, praying that the addition could not be at Rs.14.20 2 Jaspal Singh v. ITO lacs, as confirmed, as the same, representing the price of the shop

LATE SMT. MOHINI PURI THROUGH,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 76/ASR/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149

delay being fully explained, was, accordingly, condoned, and the hearing in the matter proceed with. 3. The assessee has raised a legal plea on the ground that the notice u/s. 148 dated 31.3.2011 was in fact served only on 04.04.2011, i.e., beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant year. The same is therefore