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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 33(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai721Delhi632Mumbai592Kolkata361Bangalore298Hyderabad240Ahmedabad236Jaipur170Raipur167Karnataka147Chandigarh138Pune137Nagpur118Surat88Amritsar76Indore63Cochin58Lucknow58Visakhapatnam57Cuttack43Panaji41Calcutta37Rajkot36SC30Patna23Telangana16Varanasi11Allahabad9Guwahati7Dehradun6Agra5Ranchi5Rajasthan5Orissa4Jodhpur3Himachal Pradesh2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 25010Section 143(3)8Addition to Income7Disallowance6Section 44A5Depreciation5Section 1443Section 1473Section 68

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

2
Section 2532
ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard
ITAT Guwahati
05 Apr 2023
AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

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)

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.03.2024. I.T.A. No. 283/GTY/2024 Pawan Communications Private Limited 2.1 In this case

JAGJEET SINGH & SONS,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 216/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Adj. PetitionFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, DCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

delay in filing of appeal, as from the facts it is evident that the appeal was filed within 30 days of receipt of demand notice as mentioned in Form 35 itself. (iii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in facts by observing that the appellant failed to furnish the grounds of appeal, even though the same was filed