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.

91 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai886Chennai802Delhi696Kolkata528Bangalore343Ahmedabad280Hyderabad280Jaipur234Pune205Chandigarh184Karnataka183Surat149Nagpur106Amritsar91Visakhapatnam85Indore84Raipur81Lucknow80Rajkot78Calcutta45Cuttack40Patna36Cochin35SC26Telangana23Jodhpur19Agra18Varanasi17Panaji14Guwahati13Allahabad12Jabalpur12Dehradun7Orissa5Rajasthan5Ranchi4Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 14471Addition to Income71Section 250(6)68Natural Justice45Condonation of Delay40Disallowance39Depreciation36Section 143(3)30Section 148

BAHADUR KE TEXTILES & KNITWEAR ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 86/ASR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

condone the delay and admit the appeals on merits. 16. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 2 of the order of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) had ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 10 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT discussed aims and objects of the company

BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5

30
Section 271B30
Section 26329
Section 44A29

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 501/ASR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

condone the delay and admit the appeals on merits. 16. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 2 of the order of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) had ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 10 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT discussed aims and objects of the company

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

section 263(5); the ITAT has also given discretion to condone Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT the delay in cases where sufficient cause is proved by the defaulter. In the instant case, the appellant cannot be harmed/punished for the mistakes on the part of its counsel. Accordingly, finding sufficient cause for delay in filing these appeals by the appellant assessee

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

section 263(5); the ITAT has also given discretion to condone Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT the delay in cases where sufficient cause is proved by the defaulter. In the instant case, the appellant cannot be harmed/punished for the mistakes on the part of its counsel. Accordingly, finding sufficient cause for delay in filing these appeals by the appellant assessee

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

50,000/- in respect of cash seized from the assessee. 3.1 That while sustaining the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the source of amounts and the cash flow chart filed during the assessment proceedings. 4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3. None

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 Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 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

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 156/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 152/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 151/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 154/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 155/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 153/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

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

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 182/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 183/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 184/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SHRI ALLAH RAKHA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

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

ITA 230/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250oSection 68

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions and apprehensions, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. 2. That the Learned CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi has erred both in law as well as on facts by dismissing the appeal of the Appellant unheard