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.

335 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 143(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,188Chennai1,538Delhi1,445Kolkata1,417Hyderabad759Bangalore726Pune723Ahmedabad723Jaipur454Surat355Chandigarh335Visakhapatnam292Cochin276Indore274Lucknow198Nagpur197Amritsar190Karnataka169Raipur166Rajkot163Patna136Cuttack99Panaji92Agra77Calcutta66Guwahati52Jodhpur48Allahabad34Jabalpur33Dehradun32Varanasi22SC15Telangana13Ranchi12Andhra Pradesh4Himachal Pradesh4Orissa3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income44Section 26336Section 143(3)32Section 143(1)29Condonation of Delay27Limitation/Time-bar22Section 14419Section 14819Section 115B

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 387/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 44/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 335 · Page 1 of 17

...
15
Section 3615
Section 43B15
Disallowance14

143(3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 48/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 54/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

ITA 45/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 51/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 50/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act but also in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act, Even, in respect of the some of the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 stood completed and had not abated as on the date of search on 2.5.2012 and since no incriminating material was found during

THE CHAPLAH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,VPO CHOULI vs. LD. DCIT , CPC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 47/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Dt 25.04.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri T C Verma, Advocate and Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80P

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 5. The issue raised in Ground No.1 is against the order of the CIT(A) upholding disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act') by the assessee as made by Assessing Officer, CPC in the intimation passed u/s 143(1

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

1) dt. 22/07/2022 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred by 05 days for which Revenue has filed a condonation of delay application. 3. Delay

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

ITA 463/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

condone the delay in filing these appeals.\n3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y\n2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the\nfollowing effective grounds:\n1.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASHISH SOOD,ZIRAKPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 747/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253Section 90

condone the delay in filing Form no.67 and therefore the adjustment undertaken by the CPC u/s.143(1)(a)(ii) is proposed to be upheld. 10.2 The Ld. Counsel then submitted that the aforesaid counter arguments were duly replied by the written submission dt. 07/11/2023 but unfortunately in the impugned order dt. 28/11/2023 there is not even a whisper

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 608/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: This Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gera, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form 10 B. The appellant will inform the Hon'ble Court about the decision of the CIT (Exemptions). 4. That the intimation under section 143(l)(a) of the Deputy Director of Income tax CPC dt. 13.06.2023 denying exemption ,is against the principles of natural justice, prevailing law. 5. That the appellant

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, R-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1264/CHANDI/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2002-03
For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, Adv
Section 244A

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 103/CHANDI/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2002-03
For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, Adv
Section 244A

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1412/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 17

condoning the delay. Considering the problems faced by general public as mentioned above , even the Central Board of Direct Taxes( hereinafter called the CBDT) has come out with circular no. 07/2018 dt. 20-12-2018 ( copy enclosed) authorizing the department to admit the belated application in Form 10 particularly for the A. Y -2016-17. Please refer highlighted portions

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of appeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original assessment order passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act was required to be approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D. This approval

SJVN LIMITED,SHIMLA HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT , SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & & &, SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

section 143(1) with the condonation of delay in terms of Section 249(3) of the Act if there was misconception

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

ITA 635/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

ITA 531/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 566/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals