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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 269clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka101Mumbai99Chennai68Delhi59Bangalore58Kolkata46Jaipur29Cuttack27Lucknow17Hyderabad17Pune12Ahmedabad10Amritsar10Indore8Varanasi8Raipur8Chandigarh8Nagpur7Surat7Allahabad6Calcutta5Guwahati5Patna2SC2Cochin1Rajasthan1Visakhapatnam1Jodhpur1Telangana1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income7Limitation/Time-bar6Section 1475Condonation of Delay4Section 271E3Disallowance3Section 43B2Section 2532Section 148

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO , WARD -1,, SANGRUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 388/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,43,203/- made by Id. A.O. (CPC) on account of late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI/EPF, though

SAHIL PHUTELA,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA , AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1383/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh
2
Section 32
Section 2632
Section 52
03 Feb 2026
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1383/Chd/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sahil Phutela, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh,Advocate, Vs Ward -4, 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Ambala. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Cmvpp7771G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 253Section 271ESection 3Section 5

Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, assessee was not having any knowledge of this penalty order. If it is being appreciated in the light of the fact that quantum addition made in an ex-parte order has already been challenged before ld.CIT (Appeals) as well as in appeal before the Tribunal, then it is to be inferred that

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

EMSON TOOLS MFG. CORPN. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT/DCIT- 1, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 100/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 23(4)

condone the delay which was beyond the control of the assessee and the appeal is admitted. 5. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding addition of Rs. 1188745/- towards late deposit of EPF without appreciating that it has been deposited before filing

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

condonation of delay. Appeal is therefore taken up for final hearing. Factual Matrix 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of commercial vehicles and is a public limited company. For the year under consideration which is A.Y. 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015, the assessee company filed its return

DECIMAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FATEHABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Addressing The Grievance Of The Assessee, It Is Relevant To Address Delay Of 2 Days Pointed Out By The Registry

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, Sr.DR

condoned. 3. The ld. AR inviting attention to the grounds raised in ITA 460/CHD/2022 submitted that disallowance of Rs.12,73,681/- was sustained in appeal and in the ground raised before the ITAT, the amount mentioned as Rs.13,11,390/- in the ground is a typographical error. Referring to page 3 para 5.1 of the impugned order

THE HP STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING & CONSUMERS FEDERATION LIMITED,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

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

ITA 155/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Balkrishan, ITPFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 275Section 282

269/- against NIL income as per the returned income and the present appeal alongwith paper book was thereafter filed on 20/03/2023. It was accordingly submitted that the delay so caused in filing the present appeal was due to in action and negligence on the part of its Officer who has since retired as well as on the part

MANMEET ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT,CPC//DCIT-CIRCLE-V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Vidisha Vinay, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condonation of delay and no further oppurtuinities is given either to explain or to file affidavit in this regard. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has wrongly disallowed Rs. 116244/- on account of ESI and PF without considering the judgment of Juridctional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hernia. Embroidery