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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai178Bangalore120Delhi80Ahmedabad72Hyderabad66Chennai55Pune44Chandigarh42Jaipur38Kolkata27Karnataka21Nagpur17Rajkot13Indore12Surat9Patna8Raipur7Lucknow6Agra5Allahabad4Cochin4Visakhapatnam2Jabalpur2Amritsar2Jodhpur1Panaji1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 14714Section 142(1)14Section 6910Section 1449Addition to Income9Section 2637Unexplained Investment7Condonation of Delay7Natural Justice

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 185/IND/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

For Appellant: Shri Satiksh Solanki, DRFor Respondent: 29.05.2018
Section 119(1)(b)Section 119(2)(b)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

delay u/s 119(2)(b) to regularize the revised return. The revised return filed by the appellant was not regular return. The revised return has been regularized vide order u/s 119(2)(b) dated 17.01.2008. Therefore, from the date of filing of the revised return till the date of condonation the return remained as non est. The revised return came

6
Section 143(2)5
Section 246A4
Section 1483

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

ITA 562/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

ITA 563/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

ITA 564/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

ITA 424/IND/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 69C

234C is illegal and unsustainable in law and, therefore, be cancelled. 08. That the appellant craves leave to raise additional grounds and/or make amendment in the existing grounds on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 06.01.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

ITA 611/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

234C of the IT Act as per Act and decision so made in this case and after giving the credit of prepaid taxes. 9.0 In the end, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal & has raised the following grounds of appeal

MEWA LAL SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

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

ITA 330/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimewa Lal Singh Ito 2(5) Lig-06, A-Sector Sonagiri Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angps 1966A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2024

Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

delay of 166 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Id A.O. erred in making additions of Rs. 5 ,00,000/-, by just mentioning that the assessee has not furnished any documents to substantiate the source of Investment in Mutual funds, whereas the investment was made

KAILASH CHANDRA PATIDAR,SHAJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 196/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient

KAILASH CHANDRA PATIDAR,SHAJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 216/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient