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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 210clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai147Chennai135Karnataka133Delhi62Kolkata58Bangalore56Jaipur39Ahmedabad37Pune29Surat22Hyderabad21Chandigarh19Indore12Dehradun11Amritsar9Lucknow9Jabalpur6Telangana5Guwahati5Cochin5Patna5Visakhapatnam4Cuttack4Calcutta3Raipur3Varanasi2Panaji2Himachal Pradesh1SC1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 249(4)(b)17Section 234E9Condonation of Delay9Section 2508Section 1546Section 1475Section 1485Section 2105Section 14A5

ABDUL MAJID WARD NO 6 MOHALLA RADIO STATSION HAVELI POONCH ,POONCH vs. ROMESH KUMAR SHARMA INCOME TAX OFFICER JAMMU, JAMMU

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

ITA 374/ASR/2023[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.374/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

condone the delay of 36 days and admit this appeal for hearing on merits. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.13,19,000/- in cash in his bank a/c in J & K Bank at Poonch in A/c No.XXXXXXX0003 during the demonetization period and had a total deposit of Rs.1

SHRI SAJID BASHIR KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

Cash Deposit5
Addition to Income5
Exemption3

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

ITA 302/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 302/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sajid Bashir Khan, Iqbalabad Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Bemina Srinagar, Jammu & Srinagar. Kashmir. [Pan:-Bxxpk6247E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

delay, we condone the same and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and his grievance is mainly due to the fact that the ld. First appellate authority has rejected the appeal without adjudicating on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal, by refusing

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

delay is not intentional or willful and as such we condone the same and admit the appeals to be heard on merits. 4. The common issue that arises in all the three appeals are that the Ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals without admitting the same for hearing on merits for non-payment of advance tax coupled with

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

delay is not intentional or willful and as such we condone the same and admit the appeals to be heard on merits. 4. The common issue that arises in all the three appeals are that the Ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals without admitting the same for hearing on merits for non-payment of advance tax coupled with

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

delay is not intentional or willful and as such we condone the same and admit the appeals to be heard on merits. 4. The common issue that arises in all the three appeals are that the Ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals without admitting the same for hearing on merits for non-payment of advance tax coupled with

SHRI SAROOP HARI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 10/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

delay for 358 days is condoned. 4. The brief fact of case is that as per the ld. AR the assessee basically a holy and virtuous person, has been surviving on dole received from his admirers during religious discourses beside a meagre income generated from running a small business of general merchandise in his village Nadali. Though not a regular

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 189/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

delay for 30 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed an adjournment petition and assessee was I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unable to represent the matter because assessee’s counsel for out of state. The issue is well settled

SHRI TARIQ AHMAD DAR,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

delay to be very convincing and sufficient, but in the interest of justice we condone the same and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. However, we consider it to be a fit case for imposition of costs and as such we impose a token cost of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) on the assessee, payable to the credit

SHRI KAILASH CHAND (PROP) M.K. STEELS,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is decided in the terms indicated as above

ITA 170/ASR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sh. Anupam K. Garg, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 14ASection 154

210,923, in our view, the 2 I.T.A. No. 170/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 personal attendance for presentation of the case either for the appellant or they landed AR was not required. Accordingly, the bench has instructed the Ld. CIT DR to present the case and the stand of the Department. He stands by the impugned order contending that