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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 40A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai193Kolkata91Mumbai90Delhi41Bangalore40Amritsar34Hyderabad27Pune27Ahmedabad26Jaipur26Cuttack23Indore19Raipur14Lucknow12Visakhapatnam12Surat6Cochin5Chandigarh5Nagpur4Rajkot4Patna3SC2Jabalpur1Allahabad1Dehradun1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 26324Section 40A(3)12Section 1476Disallowance5Bogus Purchases3Addition to Income2

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)

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

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

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
04 Mar 2024
AY 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)

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

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

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 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)

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

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