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.

468 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 4(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai4,139Mumbai3,959Delhi3,262Pune2,175Kolkata2,145Bangalore1,681Ahmedabad1,561Hyderabad1,402Jaipur1,017Patna736Chandigarh653Surat648Cochin626Nagpur525Visakhapatnam521Indore468Lucknow415Raipur414Amritsar355Cuttack343Rajkot326Karnataka301Panaji202Agra172Guwahati122Calcutta111Dehradun105Jodhpur104Allahabad82Ranchi66Jabalpur64SC62Telangana48Varanasi38Andhra Pradesh17Rajasthan11Orissa9Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 26374Condonation of Delay56Section 143(3)48Addition to Income41Section 14838Section 14435Section 1034Section 14727Deduction

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)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore. 4

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

Showing 1–20 of 468 · Page 1 of 24

...
27
Section 15423
Limitation/Time-bar23
Section 253(5)20
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)

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

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

4. We find from record that ITA No. 413/Ind/2007 is barred by limitation by 5 days whereas CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 are barred by 6 years and 3 days. 5. In respect of ITA Nos. 413/Ind/2007 the learned counsel for the assessee vide letter dated July 7, 2007 has prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that “The said

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

4. We find from record that ITA No. 413/Ind/2007 is barred by limitation by 5 days whereas CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 are barred by 6 years and 3 days. 5. In respect of ITA Nos. 413/Ind/2007 the learned counsel for the assessee vide letter dated July 7, 2007 has prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that “The said

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

4. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. As far as the issue of condonation of delay is concerned, it is settled law that the Court quasi-judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing

VINAYAK CARE SOLUTATION (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE OTO WARD 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 137/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

Section 5

4 [ITA No.137/Ind/2019] [Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ] No.26127/2018) on 27.8.2018 as relied by the Ld. DR is concerned, the facts are distinguishable because the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not condone the delay of the appeal of the Revenue due to misleading statement given before the Hon’ble Court. In the present case, the contention of the assessee

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

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

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

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

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)

4. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed assessee’s prayer with following contentions: (i) He submitted that there is a delay of 7 years & 104 days in one case and 6 years & 83 days 7 years in other case. He described these delays as “inordinate long delays”. He submitted that the law mandates filing of appeal within

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)

4. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed assessee’s prayer with following contentions: (i) He submitted that there is a delay of 7 years & 104 days in one case and 6 years & 83 days 7 years in other case. He described these delays as “inordinate long delays”. He submitted that the law mandates filing of appeal within

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

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

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 696/IND/2016[1973-74]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019AY 1973-74

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 119(2)(c)Section 154Section 244Section 40A(7)

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 698/IND/2016[1975-76]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019AY 1975-76

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 119(2)(c)Section 154Section 244Section 40A(7)

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 697/IND/2016[1974-75]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019AY 1974-75

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 119(2)(c)Section 154Section 244Section 40A(7)

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

MANOJ KUMAR MOTWANI,BETUL MP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 151/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Manoj Kumar Motwani, Acit, Prop. Neelam Store, Nfac, Lally Chowk, Delhi बनाम/ Kothi Bazar, Vs. Betul (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaupm8830E Assessee By Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page 2 of 9 Shri Manoj Kumar Motwani, Betul vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi ITA No. 151/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2013-14 Court, we take a judicious view, condone small delay of 9 days, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on receipt

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

4. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that CIT(A) has considered the reasons explained by the assessee in Form-35 which are not found to be reasonable cause of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal and consequentially the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted that

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

4. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that CIT(A) has considered the reasons explained by the assessee in Form-35 which are not found to be reasonable cause of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal and consequentially the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted that

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

5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently, penalty 22 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. imposed was cancelled. The case law in the case: of Mahabir Prasad Agarwal v . ACIT

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

5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently, penalty 22 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. imposed was cancelled. The case law in the case: of Mahabir Prasad Agarwal v . ACIT

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

5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently, penalty 22 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. imposed was cancelled. The case law in the case: of Mahabir Prasad Agarwal v . ACIT