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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai381Delhi310Mumbai303Bangalore236Pune142Karnataka130Nagpur129Kolkata126Jaipur106Ahmedabad102Raipur58Cochin51Hyderabad45Indore36Surat33Chandigarh29Visakhapatnam19Kerala19Rajkot14Varanasi12Cuttack12Lucknow12Jodhpur10Patna8Dehradun7SC6Agra5Amritsar5Panaji4Calcutta4Guwahati3Jabalpur3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Telangana1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 69A6Section 249(3)6Condonation of Delay5Section 2504Section 36(1)(va)3Addition to Income3Section 1472Section 362Cash Deposit

TRANSWORLD MUSLIM UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,BARBAR SHAH SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act 61. 3.1 Considering the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee is indeed a habitual defaulter because the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority for both the years , has been filed belatedly by 91 days for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 201

TRANSWORLD MUSLIM UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,BARBAR SHAH SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

2
Exemption2
Limitation/Time-bar2
ITA 39/ASR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 249(3)Section 250

section 249(3) of the Act 61. 3.1 Considering the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee is indeed a habitual defaulter because the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority for both the years , has been filed belatedly by 91 days for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 201

SHRI TARA CHAND S/O SHRI GOURI SHANKER ,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, KATHUA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 15/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

delay of 44 days is condoned. The appeal of assessee is taken for hearing. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts dismissing the appeal, as assessee fail to file reply due to the reasons beyond his control. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. 4. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. The addition was made for delayed payment of PF and ESI amount of Rs. 4,16,169/-before the close of the financial year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 appeal before

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