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(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai204Pune131Mumbai125Kolkata96Hyderabad54Delhi46Bangalore42Amritsar38Jaipur32Ahmedabad31Cuttack28Visakhapatnam27Indore19Raipur14Lucknow14Chandigarh7Cochin6Surat6Rajkot5Patna4Nagpur4Agra2SC2Dehradun1Allahabad1Jabalpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 26324Section 40A(3)18Section 14A12Disallowance7Section 1476Section 250(6)4Section 46A4Addition to Income4Limitation/Time-bar

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

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

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed
3
Bogus Purchases3
Section 14(2)2
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 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

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

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)

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 2012–13, declaring an income of Rs . 4,52,050/-. The return was filed electronically

M/S ANSHUL GOYAL LAND & HOUSING LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1427/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj BhallaFor Respondent: Shri. Surinder Meena
Section 14(2)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

condone the delay. 4. Ground No. 1 and 2 of ITA NO. 1427 and 2 & 2.1 of ITA No. 1428/CHD/2017 Addition under section 40A(3) and Application for admission of additional evidence : 5. The assessee has filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) which have been refused to be admitted. On perusal we find that the additional evidences consists

SH. ANSHUL GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj BhallaFor Respondent: Shri. Surinder Meena
Section 14(2)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

condone the delay. 4. Ground No. 1 and 2 of ITA NO. 1427 and 2 & 2.1 of ITA No. 1428/CHD/2017 Addition under section 40A(3) and Application for admission of additional evidence : 5. The assessee has filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) which have been refused to be admitted. On perusal we find that the additional evidences consists