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.

30 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(24)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai264Delhi216Mumbai173Kolkata124Karnataka100Jaipur95Chandigarh91Bangalore79Nagpur68Ahmedabad57Raipur49Hyderabad45Pune40Calcutta37Cochin31Lucknow30Indore30Cuttack24Surat23Visakhapatnam18SC15Amritsar10Telangana9Jodhpur7Varanasi6Allahabad5Guwahati5Panaji4Patna3Agra3Orissa2Rajkot2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 43B29Addition to Income23Section 36(1)(va)20Disallowance16Section 143(3)15Section 271(1)(c)15Condonation of Delay13Section 14A12Section 139(1)

SMT PUSHPLATA CHANDRAWAT,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CPC , BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.3,81,960/-, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in-law. 2a). That, the learned

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 234E10
Penalty8
Section 143(1)7

M/S MODERN LABORATARIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 113/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Modern Laboratories V. The Deputy 45-D2, Sanwer Road, Commissioner Of Income Indore Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Pan-Aacfm 5920 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Soumya Bumb, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, here it is contended that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01- 04-2021. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that

M/S LAURELS SCHOOL AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION P.LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 4. The limitation for filing the appeal in the present case was expired in the month of February, 2022 and the assessee has filed the present appeal on 25th May, 2022 but within the period of 90 as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being extension of limitation for the cases where

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 339/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Soumya Bumb, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, here it is contended that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01- 04-2021. 2 Praveen Madhukarrao Satwasker ITA No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 340/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Soumya Bumb, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, here it is contended that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01- 04-2021. 2 Praveen Madhukarrao Satwasker ITA No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years

ROSHAN HOSPITAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Roshan Hospital, Dcit/Acit, 7-A-B, Govind Garden, 5(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal-462023 (Appellant /Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.04.2023

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, here it is contended that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01-04-2021. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that

M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

ITA 263/IND/2008[05-Apr]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 43BSection 5

condonation of the delay. We, therefore, dismiss ITA No. 413/Ind/20107 and CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 being barred by limitation. Even otherwise none is appearing on behalf of the assessee and the appeals and cross objections are even otherwise liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 11. Now we would like to deal with ITA Nos. 262/Ind/2008 and 263/Ind/2008 filed

M/S NEO SACK LTD vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

ITA 262/IND/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 43BSection 5

condonation of the delay. We, therefore, dismiss ITA No. 413/Ind/20107 and CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 being barred by limitation. Even otherwise none is appearing on behalf of the assessee and the appeals and cross objections are even otherwise liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 11. Now we would like to deal with ITA Nos. 262/Ind/2008 and 263/Ind/2008 filed

MAKSON HEALTH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 35/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 36(1)(i)

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income

MAKSON HEALH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACIT1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 34/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 36(1)(i)

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income

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

x) ABR Auto(P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477(Deli-Trib (xi) SujataBhardwaj vs. DCIT (2017) 190TTJ 406 Jodhpur Tri. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore

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

x) ABR Auto(P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477(Deli-Trib (xi) SujataBhardwaj vs. DCIT (2017) 190TTJ 406 Jodhpur Tri. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore

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

x) ABR Auto(P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 0477(Deli-Trib (xi) SujataBhardwaj vs. DCIT (2017) 190TTJ 406 Jodhpur Tri. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has surrendered undisclosed income which was not offered to tax in earlier assessment years and, therefore

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

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

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

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

X 44 days = 8,800/- restricted to amount of TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] were levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matters in first- appeals and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeals and deleted

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: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

X 44 days = 8,800/- restricted to amount of TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] were levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matters in first- appeals and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeals and deleted

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)

24)(x) on account of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) collected by assessee but not deposited upto the due date under P.F. law. Ld. AR submitted that the factual position that for the month of May, 2021, the assessee has deposited employees’ contributions to P.F. on 16.06.2021 whereas the due date was 15.06.2021, therefore the payment was delayed