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.

64 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai575Chennai527Delhi406Kolkata312Pune280Bangalore254Ahmedabad215Hyderabad197Jaipur193Karnataka181Chandigarh170Visakhapatnam101Cochin78Indore69Amritsar64Lucknow59Surat46Rajkot43Panaji42Calcutta41Raipur40Cuttack35Guwahati31Nagpur25Patna21SC17Agra16Telangana13Allahabad12Jabalpur10Jodhpur9Varanasi9Dehradun7Ranchi5Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 153A54Section 14430Section 12A27Section 26325Section 1020Condonation of Delay20Addition to Income17Section 25015Natural Justice

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 257/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, and based on the assessee`s facts and undue hardship created by the clause (iii) of 3rd proviso of section 80

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

15
Exemption14
Section 143(3)12
Section 80G(5)12
ITA 258/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, and based on the assessee`s facts and undue hardship created by the clause (iii) of 3rd proviso of section 80

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 646/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 645/ASR/2019[20103-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1`, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 644/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

80 days. The ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 14 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by worthy PCIT -1 is arbitrary, whimsical, bad in law and deserves

THE BHANOKI CO-OP.AGRI.MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LTD, ,PHAGWARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ATX , PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 588/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 The Bhanoki Co-Op, Agri, Vs Dcit, Phagwara Multipurpose Society Ltd., Vpo Bhanoki, Phagwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat0546N Assessee By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M.S. Parmar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. Sud, ARFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Parmar, DR
Section 80

80-P. 4. That when the order of 2015-16 was sent to Mr. Y.K. Sud for filing the appeal before CIT(A) by our local counsel Mr. Puneet Duggal C.A. Mr. Y.K. Sud informed us that CIT(A) order of 2011-12 was served upon him by the CIT(A) office but due to an oversight his office could

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)

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

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)

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

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)

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

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)

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhavani Shankar, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

condone the delay of 80 days in filing of the present appeal before us. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 11.07.2008, declaring total income at Rs.1,05,520/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2) of the I.T Act. In the course

SHARAN FOUNDATION,MOGA, PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 254/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar13 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Adv., &
Section 282Section 80Section 80G(5)(iii)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. Whether order passed by ld. CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD is liable to be set aside on Principle of Natural Justice? 2. Whether mere uploading of notice

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

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

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

80,000/-) as stated by the AO) and the contention of the assessee was that the said deposit has come out of sale of agricultural produce. It was further submitted that 4 I.T.A. No. 541/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 investment in fixed deposits were made out of closure proceeds of earlier fixed deposits. 7. However, the AO accepted the documentary

SHRI RAVI NARULA ,FEROZE PUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 613/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 153A

80 ITR 192 (SC). The respectfully I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 24 & Others Group of cases observation of the ld. Counsel was that if the issues are debatable the preference should be given for assessee. 6.10. The ld. CIT DR mentioned that the vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) is related to tax payable and tax paid issue not a question of incriminating

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 584/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 153A

80 ITR 192 (SC). The respectfully I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 24 & Others Group of cases observation of the ld. Counsel was that if the issues are debatable the preference should be given for assessee. 6.10. The ld. CIT DR mentioned that the vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) is related to tax payable and tax paid issue not a question of incriminating

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 326/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 153A

80 ITR 192 (SC). The respectfully I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 24 & Others Group of cases observation of the ld. Counsel was that if the issues are debatable the preference should be given for assessee. 6.10. The ld. CIT DR mentioned that the vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) is related to tax payable and tax paid issue not a question of incriminating

SHRI KASHMIRA SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

ITA 276/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 153A

80 ITR 192 (SC). The respectfully I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 24 & Others Group of cases observation of the ld. Counsel was that if the issues are debatable the preference should be given for assessee. 6.10. The ld. CIT DR mentioned that the vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) is related to tax payable and tax paid issue not a question of incriminating