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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka104Chennai96Mumbai88Delhi78Hyderabad74Kolkata46Chandigarh40Jaipur36Panaji36Bangalore33Lucknow29Rajkot22Pune21Ahmedabad20Visakhapatnam16Raipur15Cochin14Nagpur11Cuttack8Telangana8Surat6Indore6Patna6Guwahati5Calcutta5Amritsar2Agra1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 69A3Section 143(3)2Condonation of Delay2

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