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.

10 results for “condonation of delay”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai136Karnataka128Delhi126Mumbai109Kolkata49Jaipur45Amritsar37Hyderabad34Cochin30Bangalore28Pune17Ahmedabad16Cuttack15Raipur14Guwahati14Lucknow13Indore10Chandigarh7Surat7Rajkot6SC6Telangana5Rajasthan5Varanasi4Jodhpur3Nagpur3Visakhapatnam1Calcutta1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Patna1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 12A17Section 80G15Section 1478Condonation of Delay8Section 253(5)6Section 116Exemption5Section 142(1)3Section 144

GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWERC vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 82/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2023-24
Section 12ASection 80G

permanent injunction in respect\nof Land Survey No.8/1 having an area of 1.060 hectare (hereinafter referred to\nas the 'suit property') situated in Village Mohrirai, Tehsil and District\nAshoknagar, contending that an order dated 30.08.1977 was passed in his\nfavour, wherein he was allotted the suit property. Thereafter, by mistake, in\nplace of the appellant's name i.e., Inder Singh

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
3
Section 12A(1)(ac)3
Penalty3
Addition to Income2
Section 10
Section 11
Section 12A
Section 12A(2)
Section 139
Section 142(1)
Section 143(3)

establishes that the assessee\nacted in bad faith, and the case deserves no such liberal treatment.\n\nOUR SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY\n\nThe following additional facts are particularly relevant and substantiate the\nRevenue's stand that the appeal is barred and merits cannot be examined:\n\n1.00 The Assessee Society, in its condonation of delay

GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWER vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 83/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2023-24
Section 12ASection 80G

permanent injunction in respect\nof Land Survey No.8/1 having an area of 1.060 hectare (hereinafter referred to\nas the 'suit property') situated in Village Mohrirai, Tehsil and District\nAshoknagar, contending that an order dated 30.08.1977 was passed in his\nfavour, wherein he was allotted the suit property. Thereafter, by mistake, in\nplace of the appellant's name i.e., Inder Singh

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 790/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

establish the correctness of claims as made on the issue of unexplained Page 11 of 25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 investment/transactions as contended as already reasoned and analysed as discussed in detail supra as pertains to assessment appeal. As appellant failed to substantiate such share transactions/investments with supporting proofs/sources, the entire transactions are treated as unexplained

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 791/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

establish the correctness of claims as made on the issue of unexplained Page 11 of 25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 investment/transactions as contended as already reasoned and analysed as discussed in detail supra as pertains to assessment appeal. As appellant failed to substantiate such share transactions/investments with supporting proofs/sources, the entire transactions are treated as unexplained

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 807/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Vs. Ltd.), Plot No. 316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2022

Section 144

condoning substantial delay of 2 years Jiji Industries Assessment year 2011-12 and 2 months and 16 days without any justifiable reasons for prolonged delay and admitting the additional evidences in violation of Rules 46A of the IT Rules, while deleting the additions made. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(5)Section 80G

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nWe have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused\nthe case record including the impugned orders.\n5.\nIn these matters, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of CIT(E) in\nrejecting assessee's applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s\n80G. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25
Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nWe have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused\nthe case record including the impugned orders.\n5.\nIn these matters, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of CIT(E) in\nrejecting assessee's applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s\n80G. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,KHARGONE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 180/IND/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Indore01 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2024

Section 14BSection 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

establishments covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 ("EPF Act") are distressed and not able to function properly. 6. Moreover In the cases of McLeod Russel India Limited v RPFC1(2014) 15 SCC 263 and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v Management of RSL Textiles (CA 96-97 of 2017) which has underlined the broad contours