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.

32 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai591Delhi463Chennai315Kolkata302Ahmedabad297Jaipur251Pune197Bangalore196Surat154Hyderabad139Karnataka126Indore104Chandigarh97Cochin78Visakhapatnam66Lucknow57Nagpur55Rajkot53Cuttack48Calcutta43Patna34Amritsar32Agra29Guwahati27Raipur25Ranchi24Panaji17Allahabad15Jabalpur14SC12Dehradun7Jodhpur6Varanasi3Telangana2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1027Section 271(1)(b)27Penalty23Section 14721Condonation of Delay19Section 153A18Section 25017Section 271(1)(c)17Section 263

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

17
Section 143(3)14
Addition to Income12
Limitation/Time-bar9

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 591/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 5/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 4/ASR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 3/ASR/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOE TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 2/ASR/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2005-06

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 1/ASR/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2004-05

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 6/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

section 263 of the Act were introduced by Finance Act 2015 and are not applicable to A.Y. 2011-12. 8. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 3. In the present case, appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act was required to be filed

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 643/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 147Section 148

condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021. The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions 16. were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated

M/S ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 137/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition before the bench. The delay was explained by the assessee. Due to wrong advise of consultant, the assessee filed appeal in delay against the order section

MESERS ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 99/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition before the bench. The delay was explained by the assessee. Due to wrong advise of consultant, the assessee filed appeal in delay against the order section

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 290/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

section 282 of the act 61 (r.w.r. 127 of I T Rules 62). 12. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 290/ASR / 2024 for Asst Year: 2013-14 Penalty matter u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 61; 13. This appeal is time barred by eighteen days. Consideration the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 289/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

section 282 of the act 61 (r.w.r. 127 of I T Rules 62). 12. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 290/ASR / 2024 for Asst Year: 2013-14 Penalty matter u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 61; 13. This appeal is time barred by eighteen days. Consideration the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

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

ITA 54/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

delay of 198 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the penalty order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala thereby levying penalty of Rs.5,09,784/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) as well as the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar, thereby confirming the penalty order passed

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 552/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 553/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

RAJIV MEHRA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay of 10 days condoned and the appeal is admitted on merits. 4. The ld. counsel contended that the penalty is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) without application of mind as the ld. Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty by issuing a notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 06.12.2019 without specific charge by striking