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.

17 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai231Delhi227Kolkata153Mumbai132Karnataka127Nagpur84Pune80Bangalore75Ahmedabad72Visakhapatnam57Hyderabad57Jaipur54Amritsar49Chandigarh45Calcutta37Cochin24Lucknow20Indore17Patna15Cuttack11Surat10Agra10Jodhpur10Raipur8Varanasi6Allahabad5Guwahati5Rajkot5Ranchi5SC4Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 200A19Section 234E19Section 271(1)(c)15Addition to Income15Condonation of Delay9Section 36(1)(va)8Section 153A8Section 43B7Section 143(3)

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 914/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 917/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed
6
Section 253(5)6
Penalty6
TDS5
ITAT Indore
13 Oct 2025
AY 2013-14

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

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

ITA 59/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

ITA 58/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

ITA 60/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 190/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 631/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 44ASection 68

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is a small trader engaged in the business of oil cake (khali) at a small town ‘Chandrawati Ganj’. For AY 2011-12, the assessee did not file any return. The AO, on the basis of information

SHRI KAMAL KISHORE KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the

ITA 1019/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 186 To 190/Ind/2016 & I.T.A.No 1019/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2000-01 To 2004-05 & A.Y. 2006-07 Shri Kamal Kishore Kotwani, Vs. Acit. Prop.M/S. K.K.Enterprises, 1(2), 192, Prabhu Nagar, Idgah Bhopal Hills, Bhopal अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Abjpk1966H

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand, CIT DRFor Respondent: 03.07.2018
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 132kSection 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

192, Prabhu Nagar, Idgah Bhopal Hills, Bhopal अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN: ABJPK1966H : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lalchand, CIT DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 03.07.2018. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of hearing : 04.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date of pronouncement -: 2 :- Shri Kamal Kishore Kotwani, Bhopal आदेश

RAHUL SHARMA ,INDORE vs. DCIT /CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 77/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Mogra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. 3. The addition of Rs. 5,36,494/- on account of delayed payment to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund ( PF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is under challenge before us. 4. The addition has been made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which has been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since

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

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

ITA 369/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 69A

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. It is to be mentioned here that the appellant did not submit any statement of facts and he mentioned in the appeal memo that the statement of fact will be submitted at the time of hearing. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant claimed that

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 92/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Moksh Solanki & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 91/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Moksh Solanki & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1337/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1341/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 516/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced