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.

130 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,255Chennai1,158Delhi1,051Kolkata651Bangalore491Ahmedabad436Pune393Hyderabad391Jaipur353Patna231Chandigarh190Karnataka185Nagpur155Surat152Lucknow137Indore130Raipur123Amritsar122Rajkot108Visakhapatnam106Cuttack71Cochin62Agra53Panaji50Calcutta49SC41Dehradun31Guwahati30Jodhpur27Allahabad24Varanasi22Jabalpur21Telangana21Kerala5Orissa5Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh3Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)69Condonation of Delay46Addition to Income46Section 26345Section 271(1)(c)36Section 25029Penalty28Limitation/Time-bar27Disallowance

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

condonation of delay petition received on 14-05-\n2025, contended that the order of the CIT(A) remained in the possession of\nthe Secretary of the Assessee Society, and, therefore, the appeal could not be\nfiled within time. However, in a subsequent affidavit, dated 30-07-2025, the\nAssessee Society has now furnished a revised explanation stating that the\nSecretary

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

27
Section 25326
Section 201(1)26
Section 13125

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 396/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: C.I. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal (PAN: AABCC6164B)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

condonation of several years as has happened in\npresent cases.\n(ii)\nReferring to Para 1 of affidavit of counsel, he submitted that the Counsel is\nstating to be in professional practice for last 35 years which shows that the\ncounsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld.\nAR's assertion, he submitted that

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 107/IND/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 8Section 80G(5)

30 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi) / [2013] 213 Taxman 65 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under section

SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 402/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

30 days. The Assessee is\nnot a body corporate and but is an individual and case of\nassessee should be considered sympathetically.\n3.4 Ld. DR then replied that the assessee has remained totally\nnon-compliant u/s 263 proceedings too. The assessee has failed\nto show sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay.\nAssessee is riding on two boats

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)

30 P.M. & 13.02.2017/3:15 P.M. respectively. The pages referred by Ld. DR are scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference: Page 8 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page 9 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page

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)

30 P.M. & 13.02.2017/3:15 P.M. respectively. The pages referred by Ld. DR are scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference: Page 8 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page 9 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 249(2)Section 69A

30 days, the delay thereafter cannot be condoned. 12. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2) of the Act. Thus, this clearly is a case of deliberate inaction and delay on the part of the appellant. Non-adherence

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 249(2)Section 69A

30 days, the delay thereafter cannot be condoned. 12. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2) of the Act. Thus, this clearly is a case of deliberate inaction and delay on the part of the appellant. Non-adherence

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

ITA 533/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 253Section 271ASection 274(2)Section 288ASection 69

delay of 394days [424 days (from 25.09.2023 to\n22.11.2024) 30days] i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30\ndays, whereas, the appellant was required to file\nappeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2)\non receipt of order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961. The appellant has sought condonation

GORELAL PARMAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 71/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Gorelal Parmar, Ito 2(5), 8, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Arvind Vihar, Vs. Baghugliya, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkxpp3183R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

30 days of the receipt of notice of demand. Further, the delay may be condoned only when the CIT(A) is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the due date. 4 Gorelal Parmar Without prejudice to the above observations and defect, powers have been conferred upon the undersigned under Section

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

30 days of receipt of the order and demand notice by the appellant. Further, section 249(3) provides that the Ld. CIT(A) may admit an appeal filed after the prescribed due date if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. As mentioned above, there was a delay

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

ITA 549/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 70

condone the delay on the ground that the assessee has not explained sufficient cause for inordinate delay of 3189 days. Ld. AR has referred to the affidavit filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) explaining the cause of delay placed at page no.13 & 14 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee has explained the reasons of delay

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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 202/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 144Section 253

condone the delay in filing the First Appeal before National\nFaceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi in light of facts & Circumstances\nmentioned above in the Interlocutory Application;\nKalpana Narware\nITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18\n7\nii. To admit the present Appeal for hearing on merits, so as to afford the\n24/03/203 Appellant an opportunity for a fair and just adjudication

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

30 days. In response thereto, assessee filed return of income on 29.05.2021 declaring total income at Rs. zero. Thereafter, issued statutory notice u/s 143(2) on 30.09.2021. In response thereto, the assessee submitted his reply on 13.12.2021 stated that no notice u/s 142(1) is supplied Page 2 of 12 Sheetal Nath Colonizers ITA No. 1094/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 to him regarding

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 670/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

30,930/-\nPenalty leviable at 200%\n4,61,860/-\nPenalty leviable (Rounded off)\n4,61,860/-\n(Rupees: Four Lacs sixty one thousand eight hundred and sixty\nonly)\nThis order has been passed after obtaining the prior approval\nfrom the Additional Commissioner of Income tax(IT), Ahmedabad\nas per section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

30,930/- consequence to misreported income (4-5) Penalty leviable at 200% 4,61,860/- Penalty leviable (Rounded off) 4,61,860/- (Rupees: Four Lacs sixty one thousand eight hundred and sixty only) This order has been passed after obtaining the prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income tax(IT), Ahmedabad as per section 274(2) of the Income

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 517/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

30 years. in the subject year I have\nincome from partnership firms, income from LTCG and interest income from other sources.\n(2) That in FY 2016-17 I engaged Mr Patil to carry out my income tax matters like filing of\nannual income tax returns and other tax compliances. For assessment year AY 2017-18 Patil\nfiled my return