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 272A(2)(K)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune116Chennai69Delhi43Cochin26Karnataka21Mumbai21Bangalore20Cuttack19Panaji10Allahabad10Lucknow8Jaipur7Ahmedabad7Chandigarh7Hyderabad6Kolkata5Rajkot5Visakhapatnam3Surat2Nagpur1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14411Penalty7Section 272A(2)(k)6Section 143(2)5Section 142(1)5Unexplained Money5Cash Deposit5Demonetization5Addition to Income

M/S BNK INVESTMENTS,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1385/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri Yogender Mittal,Sr.DR
Section 206ASection 272A(2)(k)

condoned. Said order was pronounced in the presence of parties in the Open Court. The parties were, accordingly, directed to argue the appeal on merits. 6. Briefly stated, on information available with the office of JCIT (TDS) Chandigarh, it was noticed that the person responsible (hereinafter referred to as PR) had failed to file quarterly returns in time relating

RAJESH BANSAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

5
Section 69B4
Section 69A2
TDS2
ITA 1447/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
05 Apr 2019
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1447/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pritish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 200(3)Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

272A(2)(k) of the Act for late filing of TDS return. 2 A.Y.2012-13 The appeal of the assessee is barred by time for three days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein the reason for the delay has been explained. Considering the reasons explained and the shortness of period of three days, the delay

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

K. Sehgal & Associates) and we immediately filed the appeal before worthy CIT(A) dated 22.12.2022. The assessee firm has prevented and sufficient and reasonable cause to not file appeal in time. 3. In view of the above said bona-fide reason, the delay for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench of 1082 days may please be condoned

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

K. Sehgal & Associates) and we immediately filed the appeal before worthy CIT(A) dated 22.12.2022. The assessee firm has prevented and sufficient and reasonable cause to not file appeal in time. 3. In view of the above said bona-fide reason, the delay for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench of 1082 days may please be condoned

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 736/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

K. Sehgal & Associates) and we immediately filed the appeal before worthy CIT(A) dated 22.12.2022. The assessee firm has prevented and sufficient and reasonable cause to not file appeal in time. 3. In view of the above said bona-fide reason, the delay for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench of 1082 days may please be condoned

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 734/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

K. Sehgal & Associates) and we immediately filed the appeal before worthy CIT(A) dated 22.12.2022. The assessee firm has prevented and sufficient and reasonable cause to not file appeal in time. 3. In view of the above said bona-fide reason, the delay for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench of 1082 days may please be condoned

BHOOPRAM SHARMA,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, PANCHKULA

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

ITA 860/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with statutory notices. The total assessed income was computed as Rs. 79,32,230/-, comprising the declared income of Rs. 2,86,490/-, the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 58,97,020/-, and the additional turnover-based income of Rs. 17,48,720/-. The AO issued the assessment order along with a demand notice