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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 31(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai833Chennai805Delhi765Kolkata602Bangalore311Hyderabad289Ahmedabad289Pune276Jaipur247Karnataka152Nagpur127Chandigarh120Amritsar101Raipur91Indore90Visakhapatnam83Lucknow81Surat77Rajkot75Cochin72Panaji57Cuttack55Calcutta45Patna36SC32Guwahati23Agra22Telangana18Varanasi17Allahabad16Jodhpur13Dehradun9Jabalpur9Kerala5Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh3Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 808Section 153A6Section 80I6Section 1486Section 143(3)5Section 2634Section 104Addition to Income4Condonation of Delay

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/DDN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 2. As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. AY: 2011-12 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: That the Order passed

SURENDRA SINGH,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

4
Section 1443
Limitation/Time-bar3
Transfer Pricing2

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

ITA 3094/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrir.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Surendra Singh, Vs. Dcit, Gali No. 1, Subhash Nagar, Circle, Haridwar Jwalapur, Ramesh Varampuram, Hardwar Pan: Barps1918M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

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

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 2013, the amalgamated company MSIL had addressed a communication to the assessing officer intimating the fact

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

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 2013, the amalgamated company MSIL had addressed a communication to the assessing officer intimating the fact

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 617

delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 2 Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “2. Brief facts of the case: The appellant is a company established under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, with

SH. NITIN SINGHAL,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, U.S.NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 8/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 08/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. Ito Matta Garg & Co. Chartered U.S. Nagar Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Ward-2(2)(4), Bajpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Udhamsingh Nagar, Pan: Aqwps4877P Uttarakhand, 262401

Section 263

condone the delay of 777 days in filing the present Appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case are that, return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 5,37,830/-. An addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- was made in original order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) passed

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

1 GYANENDRA PANWAR my control, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The same are being explained below point wise. 4. Self-Illness: The appellant had undergone surgical process in February 2024, the treatment for which continued till March 2024. The relevant document in support of this treatment at district hospital, Dehradun is enclosed at Page No.25-28

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