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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur28Lucknow12Bangalore12Mumbai12Pune8Kolkata8Indore7Varanasi6Chennai6Raipur4Hyderabad4Ahmedabad3Delhi3Surat3Nagpur2Visakhapatnam2Patna1Chandigarh1Amritsar1SC1Allahabad1Cochin1Jodhpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)5Section 2744Section 2714Section 115B3Section 683Deduction3Addition to Income3Section 80C2Section 143(3)2Penalty

VIKAS SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1464/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Vimal Kumarvikas Sharma Acit Vs. Prop. M/S. Pandit Homes, Circle – 55(1), M/S. Pandit Cements & New Delhi M/S. Shri Bankey Bihari Builders & Developers, 15/103, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – 201 012 Pan No. Avjps 8784 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

80C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 13. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in charging interest under Sections 234B of the Act. 14. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating

2

DHARAM PAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -42(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5811/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54B

section 271(1)(c) has been satisfied.” 3 Shri Dharampal, New Delhi 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment order came to be passed against the assessee by making addition on account of agriculture income of Rs. 30,20,000/-, on account of deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 47,37,200/-, on account of unexplained gift

SARIKA AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 50 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8832/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sarika Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, 10/5, East Patel Nagar, Ward-50(1), Civic Centre, Delhi-110008 Vs New Delhi-110002 Pan-Bolps2864A Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By None Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 115BSection 154Section 80CSection 80T

80C of amounting Rs.1,50,000/-and under section 80TTA of Rs. 1,160/- Assessee prayed to issue necessary direction to the assessing officer for allowing claims as allowable could not claim by assessee being adopted new option but CPC assessed in the new option.” 3. The assessee was called absent. 4. We have heard