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.

80 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 32(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai671Chennai650Delhi632Kolkata429Hyderabad327Pune299Bangalore252Ahmedabad248Jaipur174Karnataka150Chandigarh150Nagpur115Visakhapatnam102Amritsar90Raipur88Surat83Indore80Lucknow66Cuttack62Panaji56Calcutta43Rajkot41Cochin39SC33Guwahati28Patna23Agra20Telangana18Allahabad15Jodhpur15Varanasi11Jabalpur7Ranchi7Dehradun6Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh3Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)44Addition to Income42Section 14441Section 271(1)(c)33Section 14829Condonation of Delay27Section 26326Disallowance26Section 12A

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

ITA 663/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 22,95,983/- u/s 80P(2

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4

24
Section 271A24
Limitation/Time-bar22
Section 14A18
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

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing -: 32 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. return involving refund claims up to Rs. 10,00,000. 3. The applications/claims

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation but it depends on the discretion of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts and not length of delay. 10. In view of the above legal position

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation but it depends on the discretion of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts and not length of delay. 10. In view of the above legal position

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12A

32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AADTA8987B Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2024 of the Commissioner

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

32. (iv) Even in the matter of search cases and penalty levied under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017

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

32. (iv) Even in the matter of search cases and penalty levied under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017

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

32. (iv) Even in the matter of search cases and penalty levied under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

ITA 628/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

section 32 of the Act of Rs. 2,62,09,454/- 4. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it” Application of the assessee for condonation of delay

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) Page 2 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 3 of 32 of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

MR.MOHD WASIM,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -3 (2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 26/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Mohd. Wasim Khan, Ito, 3(2), House No. 32, Bhopal बनाम/ Yaseen Mahal, Peergate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Abdpw7203P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal C.A. & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 144

32, Bhopal बनाम/ Yaseen Mahal, Peergate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) PAN: ABDPW7203P Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal C.A. and Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 01.09.2021 passed

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 571/IND/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 40A(9)

condone the delay. There are no malafides. The cause of the delay is bonafidely explained basis bonafide reasons. The appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.3 During the course of the hearing thereafter the Ld. AR for the assessee company addressed this Tribunal first, for which the Ld. DR had no objection. 3.4 The Ld. AR stated that

RAJESH PRAJAPATI ,UJJAIN vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80G

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

SHRI SALEEM PARVEZ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded with for hearing. Page 2 of 12 Saleem Parvez ITANo.248/Ind/2021 4. The assessee submitted original return on 31.10.2015 at a total income of Rs. 2,74,75,700/- and revised return on 17.08.2016 at a total income of Rs. 3,76,76,850/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny through

ROOP SINGH TANWAR,DEWAS vs. THE CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 52/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Roop Singh Tanwar Pcit Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajtpt 7633 E Assessee By Shri A.K. Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts leading to present appeal are such that the revenue received an information that the assessee had made large cash- deposit in bank account, accordingly action u/s 147 was taken by issuing notice dated 23.03.2016. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income declaring

JIWAJI UNIVERSITY,GWALIOR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 32/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)

32 & 33/Ind/2022 (Assessment Year:2019-20) Jiwaji University CIT(Exemption) Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAALJ 0464 H Assessee by None Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate

JIWAJI UNIVERSITY,GWALIOR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 33/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)

32 & 33/Ind/2022 (Assessment Year:2019-20) Jiwaji University CIT(Exemption) Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAALJ 0464 H Assessee by None Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate

MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Chandra Agrawal, Cit(A), बनाम/ Prop. M/S Swarn Pushp Nfac, Vs. Jwellers, Delhi Sarafa Chowk, Indore (Pan:Aavpa8254B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gowind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047981997(1) dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 801/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 803/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly