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 14Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai331Chennai326Kolkata285Delhi201Karnataka110Bangalore43Hyderabad43Amritsar37Ahmedabad29Pune25Lucknow21Jaipur18Chandigarh13Cuttack10Calcutta9Indore8Guwahati6Panaji5Cochin4Varanasi4Rajkot2Visakhapatnam2Raipur2Surat2Nagpur1Allahabad1SC1

Key Topics

Section 14A12Section 143(3)7Addition to Income7Limitation/Time-bar6Disallowance5Section 684Section 143(2)3Section 2633Section 1473

ACIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S KRTI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , INDORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue ITANo

ITA 15/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2017-18 Acit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit Central-2, M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure India Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadck0129Q Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Assessees By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

condone the delay in filing the revenue’s appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. As the issues raised in all these appeals are mostly common and relates to same group of assessee, at the request of all the parties, these appeals were heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common order for sake

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S KALLYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

Section 1442
Section 69A2
Unexplained Cash Credit2

In the result, appeals of the Revenue ITANo

ITA 14/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2017-18 Acit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit Central-2, M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure India Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadck0129Q Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Assessees By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

condone the delay in filing the revenue’s appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. As the issues raised in all these appeals are mostly common and relates to same group of assessee, at the request of all the parties, these appeals were heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common order for sake

PURSHOTTAM RATHORE,RATLAM vs. ITO 1(2), UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 260/IND/2025[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2008-09
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

condone delay and admit this\nappeal.\n5. Ld. AR next submitted that it is true that the assessee was unable to\ncomply with notices issued by AO during assessment-proceedings and\ntherefore the AO made addition of Rs.16,69,500/- by treating entire amount\nof deposits in bank a/c as unexplained money. But it is also a fact that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 49/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 333/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

delay in present appeal is condoned. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a co-operative bank. For AY 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 86,90,950/- and subsequently filed a revised return on 15.12.2014 declaring a total income

THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUYASH EXIM P LTD , INDORE

Accordingly, departmental grounds with regard to addition of Rs.1,81,847/- are dismissed

ITA 356/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and, in law, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating the findings and establishment of the Assessing Officer. 2) On the facts

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse on 04.03.2022 is treated as within the limitation. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore u/s 263 of the Act is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income