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.

15 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 29clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai982Delhi824Mumbai803Kolkata534Bangalore370Pune313Ahmedabad302Jaipur261Hyderabad253Karnataka177Nagpur129Raipur122Chandigarh116Surat106Amritsar95Indore91Panaji82Lucknow77Rajkot72Visakhapatnam71Cuttack56Cochin47Calcutta40Patna34SC32Agra21Telangana20Allahabad15Dehradun15Varanasi14Guwahati13Jodhpur11Jabalpur7Kerala7Rajasthan5Orissa4Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 153A10Condonation of Delay10Addition to Income9Section 808Section 142(1)6Section 143(3)6Section 80I6Section 1475Section 148

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 36/DDN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 249

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. Since the matter is remanded to CIT(A) to decide the issues involved in the other grounds, the Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 4 to 8 requires no adjudication

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

5
Section 1325
Search & Seizure5
Penalty3
ITA 35/DDN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 249

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. Since the matter is remanded to CIT(A) to decide the issues involved in the other grounds, the Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 4 to 8 requires no adjudication

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

For Appellant: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 144Section 153CSection 249(3)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of delay afresh by speaking order. 6. Ground No. 4 to 14 are relating to admission of additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A) and deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in land, unexplained cash credits and unexplained investment on account of loans and advances. 7. There was a search and seizure

SSGR HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 71/DDN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

delay of 18 days in filing the Appeals are hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out at M/s SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. "Group of cases", Haldwani and other premises

SSGR HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HALDWANI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 73/DDN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

delay of 18 days in filing the Appeals are hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out at M/s SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. "Group of cases", Haldwani and other premises

SSGR HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 70/DDN/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

delay of 18 days in filing the Appeals are hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out at M/s SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. "Group of cases", Haldwani and other premises

SSGR HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 72/DDN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

delay of 18 days in filing the Appeals are hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out at M/s SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. "Group of cases", Haldwani and other premises

SSGR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, HALDWANI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 41/DDN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

delay of 18 days in filing the Appeals are hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out at M/s SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. "Group of cases", Haldwani and other premises

M/S SUNIL TRADERS,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, W-2(3)(3), ALMORA, ALMORA

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

ITA 50/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sunil Traders, Vs. Ito, M/S. 01, Parwati Inn, Ward-2(3)(3), Ranikhet, Uttarakhand- 263 Almora 651 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajas3203P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

29-12-2018 determining total income at Rs 28,63,480/- after making addition of Rs 28,28,800/- on account of estimation of net profit of the assessee after rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act. The appeal was filed before the learned JCITA with a delay of 1495 days. The assessee duly filed

GYANENDRA PANWAR,DEHRADUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shr Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.238/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Gyanendra Panwar, Assistant Director Of Income Nanda Devi Enclave, Badripur, Vs. Tax, Cpc,Ito,Ward 1(3)(4), Dehradun-248005, Uttarakhand. Aaykar Bhawan, 16, Civil Lines, Pan No.Adipp2853R Near Iit Roorkee, Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

29. Further, the appellant was again under treatment at district hospital Dehradun and underwent minor surgery. The OPD slip dated 11.05.2024 is enclosed at page no. 30. The assessee was further under treatment for prostate issues at Max Healthcare, Noida. Prescription dated 15.02.2025 is enclosed at page no. 31. The appellant was under treatment at Kailash Hospital, Dehradun

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The case of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 was sought to be re-opened by the Learned AO vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that assessee has purchased TDR amounting to Rs 7,55,29

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 87/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The case of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 was sought to be re-opened by the Learned AO vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that assessee has purchased TDR amounting to Rs 7,55,29

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Delay condoned. This special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary to the law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice under Section 148 of the 1961 Act referred to two reasons. The first reason was with regard to non-declaration of the account in ING Vysya Bank with a credit of Rs.70

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 3/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

29 January 2013 by the High Court of Delhi under the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 1 April 2012; (vii) Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143 (2). The notice was issued in the name of the amalgamating company in spite of the fact that on 2 April

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 24/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

29 January 2013 by the High Court of Delhi under the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 1 April 2012; (vii) Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143 (2). The notice was issued in the name of the amalgamating company in spite of the fact that on 2 April