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 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai192Surat139Delhi91Chennai64Ahmedabad64Jaipur60Kolkata44Rajkot34Raipur32Pune29Indore25Bangalore25Hyderabad21Visakhapatnam21Lucknow20Chandigarh18Cochin12Nagpur11Guwahati9Cuttack8Allahabad5SC5Varanasi5Agra3Patna3Panaji2Dehradun2Amritsar2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 682Addition to Income2Condonation of Delay2

SHRI NITIN SEHGAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 5

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal has constraints in exercising the Power of Condonation of delay in filing appeal where no cogent and satisfactory explanation had been furnished by assessee for inordinately long delays in filing appeal before Tribunal. 9. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 149/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar
07 Jul 2023
AY 2013-14

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

Section 68

section 68 are not applicable as the assessee appellant has made re- payment of loan taken from the bank against limit. As such addition of Rs. 9,10,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law. The same be deleted. 3 I.T.A. No. 149/Asr/2023 Gamdoor Singh v. ITO 6. That the appellant craves