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.

157 results for “disallowance”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,098Chennai882Delhi736Kolkata602Bangalore401Pune372Ahmedabad346Hyderabad295Jaipur258Cochin176Chandigarh157Surat135Indore127Visakhapatnam116Lucknow116Raipur106Nagpur97Amritsar89Cuttack83Rajkot78Panaji65Patna49Agra31Jodhpur28Guwahati20Dehradun12Ranchi12SC12Jabalpur10Allahabad8Varanasi6

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Disallowance55Section 143(1)54Section 26351Condonation of Delay41Section 143(3)36Section 3636Section 43B35Section 1030Section 139(1)

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 608/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: This Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gera, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

condonation of delay order from CIT(Exemption), these grounds of the appellant fails. Addition made by CPC is hereby upheld. 6.2 Ground No. 5 & 6 are general in nature and hence Dismissed 7. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed". 2.9 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised

Showing 1–20 of 157 · Page 1 of 8

...
29
Limitation/Time-bar29
Section 25028

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. PARTAP INDUSTRIES LIMITED, RAJPURA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Shri Raman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the return of income e-filed by the assessee was processed by CPC u/s 143 (1) of the Act by making an addition on account of disallowance

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of appeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original assessment order passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act was required to be approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D. This approval

M/S SHAKTI SPINNERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/CHANDI/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it was argued before us by the Ld. Counsel that the only ground of appeal is with regard to the addition on account of unsecured loans, from the directors and their family members

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 736/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

Delay caused due to genuine and procedural challenges should be condoned if the taxpayer demonstrates bona fide conduct." iv). Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society v. CIT (Exemption) [2024] 298 Taxman 650 (Bombay): "Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

Delay caused due to genuine and procedural challenges should be condoned if the taxpayer demonstrates bona fide conduct." iv). Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society v. CIT (Exemption) [2024] 298 Taxman 650 (Bombay): "Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

Delay caused due to genuine and procedural challenges should be condoned if the taxpayer demonstrates bona fide conduct." iv). Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society v. CIT (Exemption) [2024] 298 Taxman 650 (Bombay): "Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 734/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

Delay caused due to genuine and procedural challenges should be condoned if the taxpayer demonstrates bona fide conduct." iv). Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society v. CIT (Exemption) [2024] 298 Taxman 650 (Bombay): "Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances

M/S LITTLE KANHAYA KNITWEARS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 724/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 724/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018019 M/S Little Kanhya Vs. The Dcit बनाम Central Circle-3, Knitwears, Ludhiana Ram Gali, Madhpuri-1, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefl0415E अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 36Section 40

delay in filing of appeal before Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Ludhiana due to the technical glitches on 724-Chd-2022 M/s Little Kanhya Knitwears, Ludhiana 4 Income Tax Portal. Moreover, The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Order dated 27/04/2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020 extended time limits as prescribed under

INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA vs. SH. SEWA SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 696/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Shri Sewa Singh, बनाम H. No. B-27,Focal Point, Patiala Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abjpj5347B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02 .07.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43BSection 69

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the return of income e-filed by the assessee was processed by CPC u/s 143 (1) of the Act by making an addition on account of disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. KULWARAN SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance u/s 36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 4.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. GURMEET SINGH PANDHER, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance u/s 36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 4.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. MOHAR SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance u/s 36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 4.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before

SHRI GURU NANAK NAM LEWA SEWAK JATHA,,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Poplani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

disallowed and the assessee was issued a show cause in this regard. In response, the assessee submitted that it has filed Form 10B on 22/03/2019, however there has been a delay in filing the said form and reasons for the delay were explained and it was requested to condone

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S THE BRITISH CO. ED. SCHOOL, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

condonation application alongwith an affidavit. It was submitted that the return of income e-filed by the assessee was processed by CPC u/s 143 (1) of the Act vide order dated 22/10/2019 by making an addition of Rs. 9,73,615/- on account of disallowance of employee’s share of ESI and PF which was deposited late i.e., after

ITO, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. KAWALJEET SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 447/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance u/s 36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 5.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before

ITO, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. KAWALJEET SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance u/s 36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 5.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before

ITO, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. KAWALJEET SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance u/s 36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 5.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before

THE KOTLA BHARI MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY LTD.,KHANNA vs. ITO, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)

delay of 3350 days, attributed to inadequate legal advice, and supported by an affidavit. However, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of being time-barred, rejecting the request for condonation. The Assessing Officer, through automated processing at CPC Bengaluru, had disallowed

AJAR AMAR STEELS 1725 10G, 3-A, FOCAL POINT LUDHIANA 141010,PUNJAB vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL) LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 950/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajar Amar Steels, Vs The Pcit (Central), 1725 10G, 3-A, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefa8866A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 40Section 5

condonation of delay. A.Y.2017-18 2 3. Before adverting to the application of the assessee, we would like to take note of finding of the ld. CIT in paragraph No. 5 of 263 order, which reads as under : “5 In view of the above, the impugned order in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18is held erroneous