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 279(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai172Karnataka103Chandigarh65Mumbai61Delhi28Kolkata28Bangalore19Jaipur16Cochin13Cuttack10Pune10Hyderabad8Ahmedabad7Patna7Nagpur7Surat6Lucknow4SC3Visakhapatnam2Amritsar2Indore2Jodhpur2Raipur2Agra1Rajasthan1Guwahati1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

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

279 of 2016, decided on February 9, 2017 and Harish Kumar Chhabra v. CIT ITA No. 38 of 2012, decided on August 28, 2012, is of no help to him. 8. Under the provision of Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal has constraints in exercising the Power of Condonation of delay in filing appeal where

SMT. HARVINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I,, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 328/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar
29 Oct 2018
AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

1 (SC). This is as the same is not appealable as held by the Apex Court in Central Provinces Maganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC), unless the assessee denies his liability to interest (under the relevant sections), as in that case he is essentially challenging his assessment, which is (of course) appealable. We are conscious