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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80G(5)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune177Chennai136Mumbai119Ahmedabad97Jaipur83Delhi50Kolkata46Bangalore40Hyderabad27Surat20Rajkot17Lucknow16Nagpur10Chandigarh8Amritsar7Agra6Indore6Panaji4Raipur3Allahabad3Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam2Cuttack2Calcutta2SC1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A18Section 80G(5)8Section 80G(5)(ii)8Section 80G(5)(iii)7Exemption7Section 80G6Natural Justice3Section 2(15)2Section 252

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

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)

ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corpn. [2004] 268 ITR 172/139 Taxman 348 (Delhi). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G

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)

ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corpn. [2004] 268 ITR 172/139 Taxman 348 (Delhi). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G

PARDHAN ACHARYA PUJYA SHRI SOHAN LAL JAIN SAMARAK SAMITI,AMRITSAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 603/ASR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2024-25

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

section 80G (5) (ii) of the Income Tax Act (In short ‘the Act’). 2. None attended for the assessee. However, after hearing the Ld. CIT (DR) and going through the written submission dated 05.08.2025 filed by the assessee, we find that there was short delay of 35 days and 38 days in the ITA Nos. 603/Asr/2024 and 604/Asr/2024 respectively

BHABRIANI SAMADH BABA VERA JI WELFARE SOCIETY,AMRITSAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 604/ASR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2024-25

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

section 80G (5) (ii) of the Income Tax Act (In short ‘the Act’). 2. None attended for the assessee. However, after hearing the Ld. CIT (DR) and going through the written submission dated 05.08.2025 filed by the assessee, we find that there was short delay of 35 days and 38 days in the ITA Nos. 603/Asr/2024 and 604/Asr/2024 respectively

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

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

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

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)

section code 80G(5)(ii)), again under wrong advise. Thereafter, waiting for a considerable period of time, this appeal has been filed by the assessee before this tribunal (this time on correct advise), belatedly. The Ld AR of the assessee submitted that in the instant case there has not been any wilful neglect on the part of the assessee