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.

171 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai859Delhi749Mumbai695Kolkata377Pune328Surat264Bangalore240Hyderabad212Ahmedabad189Jaipur173Indore171Karnataka147Nagpur134Chandigarh128Raipur117Amritsar116Panaji95Cochin94Lucknow66Cuttack49Jodhpur44Visakhapatnam43Calcutta41Rajkot38SC29Patna26Varanasi20Telangana17Allahabad14Guwahati12Jabalpur9Dehradun7Rajasthan6Agra4Andhra Pradesh3Orissa3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1Ranchi1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)59Section 26353Condonation of Delay45Addition to Income39Section 253(5)37Section 14437Section 14836Section 12A26Disallowance

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

ITA 523/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80P

34,160 to the total income of assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in completing the assessment best of his judgment” 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the assesse is Cooperative Society and filed its return of income belatedly

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...
26
Section 142(1)24
Section 14724
Limitation/Time-bar22
ITA 511/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(1)Section 263

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; I.T.A. No.511/Ind/2024 11 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay

SHRI KISHAN YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 487/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54B

condone delay,\nadmit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n9. Going forward, we find that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has\ndismissed assessee's first appeal although due to non-prosecution by\nassessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the\nmandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld.\nCIT(A) deserves

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

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 of reply is reproduced herewith. Para-4 of reply dated 28.12.2022 During

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

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

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

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

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

section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter\nissued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.\"\n2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned\npenalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on\nPage 4 of 22\n06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before Ld. CIT(A) who by the\n\"impugned order” has dismissed the appeal

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

section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter issued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on Page 4 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before

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

34,840/- from sale of\nimpugned agricultural land, (ii) low household expenses of Rs.80,000/-\nand (iii) Unexplained expenses of Rs.67,430/- registration and stamp duty\nof new property purchased. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-\nappeal but the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order due to non-prosecution by\nassessee and upheld AO's order. Still aggrieved

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

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271E

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 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 passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even

UMESH KUMAR MOTWANI,INDORE vs. CIT(A), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 538/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(2)Section 144

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nOn merit of case, it emerged during hearing that the assessee filed\nfirst-appeal to CIT(A)-II, Indore on 13.01.2018 under “physical mode” then\nprevailing. Thereafter, the CIT(A)-II, Indore conducted proceedings

RAVINDRA JAISWAL,BADWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SENDHWA, SENDWA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 431/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 144Section 253(5)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4. Ld. AR for assessee next submitted that the assessment-order was\npassed by AO u/s 144 for lack of representation by assessee. He submitted\nthat the assessee is engaged in the activity of distributorship

PITAMBER WADHWANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 513/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Pitamber Wadhwani, Dcit-1(1) 101, Saakaar Kunj, 3 Indore बनाम/ Shanti Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacpw6714B Assessee By Shri Sandeep Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249Section 250Section 253(5)

section 249(3) r.w.s. 253(5) of the Act and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay occurred at the stage of filing first-appeal before CIT(A). 4. Since we have condoned the delay in filing first-appeal, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 34/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 263Section 54B

condone the delay in filing of this appeal.\nPage 3 of 7\nRamrati Sahu\nITA No. 34/Ind/2025 - AY 2014-15\nBEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE\nAppellant\nRam Rati Sahu\n74, Hanumanganj Market, Bhopal\nPAN\nATNPS4535N\n Assessment Year :\n2014-15\nAppeal No.\nITA 34/ Ind/2025\nSUBMISSIONS\nThe present appeal is against the Order u/s 250 dated

ILA BHATNAGAR,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 31/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 144Section 253(5)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n3. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessment-order was passed by AO u/s 144. He submitted that although the assessee filed replies to AO which the AO has also acknowledged in assessment-order but, however

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 250 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to file appeal before the ld.CIT(A) agitating the additions/disallowances made by the AO in the assessment order and, in the present case, the assessee availed this opportunity and filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) raising the sole ground of disallowance of Rs.7,00,852/- which was allowed

SANJAY MUKATI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), MAIN BUILDING INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble\Nand\Nshri B.M. Biyani\Nita No.510/Ind/2025\N Assessment Year:2012-13\Nsanjay Mukati,\N225, Tanki Chowk,\Nbijalpur,\Nindore\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nito 2(1)\Nindore\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Bcepm6423N\Nassessee By Shri Rishikesh Mishra, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N11.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N23.12.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 13.02.2025 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By Learned\Nito-2(4), Indore [“Ao”] U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The\Nact"] For Assessment-Year [“Ay"] 2012-13, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal\Non The Grounds Mentioned In Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).\Nsanjay Mukati\Nita No. 510/Ind/2025 - Ay 2012-13\N2. The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 31\Ndays & Therefore Time-Barred. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The\Nassessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported By\Naffidavit; The Affidavit Filed By Assessee Is Scanned & Re-Produced For An\Nimmediate Reference:\Nभारतीय गैर न्यायिक\Nएक सौ रुपये\Nrs.100\None\Nhundred Rupees\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14494\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ngov\Nof\Nindia Non Noted Registered\Nमध्य प्रदेश Madhya Pradesh\Notary\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14484\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ned\Nserial No. .......\Ndate..

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 253(5)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4. On merit of case, it emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has\npassed following order:\n“8.2 The assessee has filed additional evidence during the course of\nappellate proceedings which does not explain the case of the assessee.\nHowever, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return