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 202clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai138Chennai84Kolkata67Delhi30Bangalore22Pune20Jaipur19Rajkot19Hyderabad14Ahmedabad14Panaji11Nagpur9Chandigarh7Visakhapatnam5Indore5Varanasi5Lucknow4Jodhpur4Surat4Karnataka4Telangana3SC3Patna2Cochin2Allahabad1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Amritsar1Raipur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1518Section 148B4Section 2634Bogus Purchases4Reassessment4Reopening of Assessment4Addition to Income4Section 1472Section 148

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 263

delay is, accordingly, condoned. Ordered accordingly. 4. The ld. AR, accordingly, was directed to address the grievance of the assessee in the appeal filed. On behalf of the assessee, it was submitted at the outset that the assessee does not wish to specifically press ground No. 2 as the issue would stand addressed by the other grounds. ITA 104 /CHD/2021

SHRI JAGPAL SINGH,FATEHBAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

ITA 202/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh
2
Section 143(3)2
22 Aug 2022
AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Jain, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

condone the delays and admit both the appeals for the purpose of hearing. 7.0 The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not made inquiries vis-à-vis 12 SA 1-Chd-2022 ITA No 202-Chd-2019,(A.Y. 2011-12) – S/Shri Jagtar Singh and Jagpal Singh the claim of the assessees

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

ITA 201/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Jain, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

condone the delays and admit both the appeals for the purpose of hearing. 7.0 The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not made inquiries vis-à-vis 12 SA 1-Chd-2022 ITA No 202-Chd-2019,(A.Y. 2011-12) – S/Shri Jagtar Singh and Jagpal Singh the claim of the assessees

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148BSection 151

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 148BSection 151

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 148BSection 151

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 148BSection 151

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing