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 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai208Mumbai130Kolkata107Delhi51Bangalore47Amritsar35Hyderabad31Pune28Jaipur27Cuttack25Ahmedabad23Indore17Lucknow17Raipur13Visakhapatnam11Surat7Chandigarh7Rajkot6Patna5Cochin4Nagpur4Agra2Calcutta2SC2Allahabad1Dehradun1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 26324Section 40A(3)22Disallowance7Section 1476Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Bogus Purchases3Section 46A2

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
04 Mar 2024
AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

SHRI SUBHASH SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1586/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal, As Pointed Out By The Registry. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Of The Assessee. On Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Of The Assessee, The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13,53,380/- which was selected for scrutiny and after issuing notices and calling for the necessary information/documentation, the assessment was completed under section 143(3

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1284/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)

3. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s Apex Builders, a firm engaged in civil and road construction work, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

SHRI SACHIN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1489/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1489/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1490/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sachin Goyal Acit- Circle-7 बनाम/ Vs. 29/1, The Mall Ludhiana. Ludhiana 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abwpg-3117-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (Ca) & Vk Bhalla (Ca)- Ld Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010- 11 & 2011-12 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 20-08-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 20-03-

For Appellant: S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (CA) and VK BhallaFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

delay of one day in both the appeals which stand condoned. 2. It emerges that the assessee purchased certain land for Rs.469.98 Lacs out of which the payment of Rs.54.89 Lacs was made in cash. The land was held as stock-in-trade and accordingly, Ld. AO formed an opinion that the cash payment so made by the assessee would

SHRI SACHIN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1490/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1489/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1490/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sachin Goyal Acit- Circle-7 बनाम/ Vs. 29/1, The Mall Ludhiana. Ludhiana 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abwpg-3117-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (Ca) & Vk Bhalla (Ca)- Ld Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010- 11 & 2011-12 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 20-08-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 20-03-

For Appellant: S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (CA) and VK BhallaFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

delay of one day in both the appeals which stand condoned. 2. It emerges that the assessee purchased certain land for Rs.469.98 Lacs out of which the payment of Rs.54.89 Lacs was made in cash. The land was held as stock-in-trade and accordingly, Ld. AO formed an opinion that the cash payment so made by the assessee would