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.

104 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai589Delhi462Chennai315Kolkata299Ahmedabad298Jaipur250Bangalore196Pune196Surat154Hyderabad139Karnataka126Indore104Chandigarh97Cochin78Visakhapatnam66Lucknow59Nagpur55Rajkot53Cuttack48Calcutta43Patna34Amritsar32Agra29Guwahati27Raipur25Ranchi24Panaji17Allahabad15Jabalpur14SC11Dehradun7Jodhpur6Varanasi3Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)95Penalty71Addition to Income63Section 14753Condonation of Delay50Section 14447Section 143(3)46Section 6926Section 271A

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

2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

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

Showing 1–20 of 104 · Page 1 of 6

26
Limitation/Time-bar26
Section 14825
Section 6823

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

2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

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

2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

2. Refusing to condone the delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest than can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties sale 3. “Everyday delay must be explained “” does not mean that

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

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

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 247/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

2 of affidavit, the counsel has averred that he was dealing assessee’s income-tax affairs and Para 4, he has further averred that the impugned order was handed over to him for filing appeal before ITAT; that he gave order to office staff for preparation and submission of appeal but due to ignorance on the part of his staff

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 248/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

2 of affidavit, the counsel has averred that he was dealing assessee’s income-tax affairs and Para 4, he has further averred that the impugned order was handed over to him for filing appeal before ITAT; that he gave order to office staff for preparation and submission of appeal but due to ignorance on the part of his staff

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 80/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)Section 69

271(1)(c ) as the assessment order itself is void-ab-initio (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 78/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)Section 69

271(1)(c ) as the assessment order itself is void-ab-initio (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 79/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)Section 69

271(1)(c ) as the assessment order itself is void-ab-initio (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 1094/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 60

2,148,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act was proposed. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also proposed in SCN. In response thereto AR of the assessee furnished reply on 28.02.2002 at final stage of assessment proceedings which examined and found not convincing. The relevant portion

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 732/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

2. Background and Reasons for Delay  Unawareness of Assessment Order: Mr. Nair explains that he became aware of the assessment order, issued under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only through the Income Tax e-filing portal. This suggests he might not have received the physical copy of the order due to his relocation. Page

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 538/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

2. Background and Reasons for Delay  Unawareness of Assessment Order: Mr. Nair explains that he became aware of the assessment order, issued under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only through the Income Tax e-filing portal. This suggests he might not have received the physical copy of the order due to his relocation. Page

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing

SHRI SURESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

ITA 169/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

SHRI RAJENDRA MANSUKHANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

ITA 172/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

SHRI UMESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

ITA 170/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty