Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur27 Mumbai12 Bangalore12 Lucknow10 Pune8 Kolkata7 Indore6 Chennai6 Varanasi6 Raipur4 Ahmedabad3 Delhi3 Surat3 Hyderabad2 Nagpur2 Chandigarh2 Visakhapatnam2 Patna1 Allahabad1 Amritsar1 SC1 Cochin1 Jodhpur1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)4 Section 80A4 Section 803 Section 80P3 Section 139(1)2

THE TAL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,HAMIRPUR vs. ITO, WARD, HAMIRPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 468/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Patiyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80CSection 80P

delay was beyond the Assessee; that the Audit Report was dated 11.02.2019, and it was only after filing thereof, that the return was filed on 13.03.2019; that the amendment under section 80C is advisory and not mandatory; that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the Assessee; and that such an adjustment could not be made

RAKESH BANSAL,BARNALA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

ITA 110/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: 22.05.2018. Iii). The Appeals Were Filed As Per Above Notice On 04.02.2019. 2. It Is Submitted That In The Above Said Case, The Appeals Were Prepared On 10Th Of April 2018 & Even The Fee For Filing The Appeals Were Deposited On 16.04.2018, But The Appeals Were Inadvertently Filed In The Office Of The Cit, Pr On 17.04.2018 As Per Necessary Evidence Being Enclosed Herewith In The Form Of Receipt Evidencing The Fact That The Appeals Were Filed On 17.04.2018 In The Office Of The Cit(Dr) Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishan Kumar, CITDR

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1a) That the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained Jewellery amounting to Rs.59,59,890/- U/S 69A of the Act as per Ground No.2, Para 5 of her order