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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 144C(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi130Mumbai97Kolkata36Hyderabad34Chennai31Bangalore31Pune12Jaipur12Ahmedabad11Chandigarh5Visakhapatnam4Indore4Rajkot3Nagpur2Dehradun2Cochin1Calcutta1Raipur1SC1Agra1Cuttack1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 2638Section 80G7Section 56(2)(viib)6Limitation/Time-bar4Addition to Income3Section 37(1)2Section 143(3)2Section 682Section 147

JONANG BUDDHIST EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1350/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1350/Chd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26) Jonang Buddhist Educational Commissioner Of Society Income बनाम/ C/O Tejmohan Singh, Advocate Tax Exemptions, Vs. #527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh 160011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafaj-8024-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) Appellant By ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of : 07- 01-2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.09.2025 Passed By The Ld.

For Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) DR by
Section 10ASection 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

condone the delay in filing the application in Form 10AB. Thus, the Commissioner (Exemption) had rightly denied the grant of approval under section 80G(5) by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 Sc 2173 as well as of Indian v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company 1996 taxmann.com

2
Revision u/s 2632

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1328/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Sumisha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 37(1)

144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.10.2012 & for A.Y. 2008-09, that the AO has held that the assessee had failed to show how the inclusion of the expenses was done in the cost charged by the assessee company to its client. Further, the AO held that the assessee failed to explain how these expenses related to the normal business

RISHNOOR KAUR,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Dhiman, Advocate (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)

5. During the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay was fully explained, bona fide and neither deliberate nor intentional. It was emphasised that the assessee is a non-resident and had acted diligently by handing over the papers to her counsel. The subsequent misplacement of documents and the shifting of office premises were administrative lapses wholly beyond

M/S AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 171/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

5. The Ld. DR is heard, who has not raised any specific objection. 6. After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, we find that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal due to COVID-19 pandemic, hence, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee

AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH

ITA 212/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

5. The Ld. DR is heard, who has not raised any specific objection. 6. After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, we find that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal due to COVID-19 pandemic, hence, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee