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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 154(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna471Mumbai245Delhi178Chennai167Bangalore135Kolkata95Pune91Ahmedabad72Hyderabad65Jaipur60Chandigarh57Surat42Lucknow35Nagpur34Visakhapatnam31Cochin31Indore30Raipur27Rajkot17Agra15Amritsar11Cuttack10Jodhpur10SC9Jabalpur8Guwahati8Ranchi5Panaji4Allahabad2Varanasi2Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 25010Section 143(3)10Addition to Income7Disallowance6Section 44A5Depreciation5Section 1544Section 1473Section 80

ARECA GLOBAL ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/GTY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The

Section 154Section 250

154 through which upward adjustment of Rs. 68,39,923/- was made as business income. Before the I.T.A. No. 22/GTY/2025 Areca Global Associates Private Limited Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the appeal was filed with a delay of 179 days, admittedly without any petition seeking condonation of the said delay. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati
3
Section 2532
Condonation of Delay2
05 Apr 2023
AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

154 whereby he proposed to add back Rs. 4745025 to the assessed total income of Rs. 18882165 determined under section 147 vide order dated 21.03.2024 pursuant to the relief of Rs.490222 granted by the appellate order of the learned CIT(A) dated 21.03.2024 in respect of the original assessment order dated 27.09.2021. At the relevant time, the accounts department

PRIYANSHU BOIRAGI,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Priyanshu Boiragi Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati 16, Prasanti Path, Basistha Vs. Road, Survey Guwahati, Assam- 781028. Pan: Aiapb 4499 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Both The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac As Well As Ld. J.A.O. Are Not Justified In Confirming/Rejecting The Petition Filed U/S. 154 Of I.T. Act 1961 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80(Ie) In Respect Of Vat Remission Claimed As Revenue Receipt In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ii. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Not Justified Also In Not Considering The Cbdt Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/Misc/140/2015/Itj Dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & Pac) Dated 17.11.1971 As Submitted By The Appellant Online Firstly On 16.01.2016 & Secondly On 05.10.2021 Vide Annexures - 5 & 6 In The Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021 While Passing The Appellate Order U/S. 250 Of I.T. Act 1961 Iii. For That The Ld. A.O. Has Not Considered In Right Perspective Rectification Petition Dated 21.04.2016, 09.04.2019 16.03.2020 Submitted Online Vide Annexure - 3 Of Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021. 2 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 Iv. For That The Other Grounds Of Law As Well As Of Facts, The Appellant May Be Allowed To Raise On Or Before The Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80

section 154 of the Act. 3. Dissatisfied with the above, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the ld. CIT(A) sustained the order passed by the ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 4. Aggrieved by the above order of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before