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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna150Karnataka123Mumbai63Chennai63Delhi54Kolkata45Raipur41Amritsar37Bangalore31Jaipur31Visakhapatnam27Surat21Pune13Lucknow12Hyderabad11Ahmedabad10Cuttack5Cochin5Indore5SC4Telangana4Chandigarh3Rajkot2Nagpur2Guwahati2Jodhpur1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Agra1Orissa1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 270A5Section 2634Section 1484Section 1472Section 69C2Limitation/Time-bar2Addition to Income2Condonation of Delay2

M/S K.K. APPARELS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, SOLAN

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 852/CHANDI/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr.DR
Section 80I

section 80IB claimed at 100% resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,28,89,273/- without any independent reasoning which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and is unsustainable in law. 3. The appeal is barred by long limitation period

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
23 Jul 2025
AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

condone the delay. 6. The Departmental Representative argued that the original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 by recording the reasons and thereafter, the notice u/s 142(1) was issued. It was stated that certain information was received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata that on account

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

delay of 40 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on the merits. 3. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 2 1. That the Learned PCIT has erred in law and facts and circumstance of the case invoking section 263 by directing the AO to initiate penalty u/s 270A when no penalty