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.

17 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai206Mumbai122Kolkata101Delhi46Bangalore45Amritsar35Hyderabad29Pune28Jaipur25Cuttack25Ahmedabad23Indore17Lucknow15Raipur13Visakhapatnam11Surat6Rajkot5Chandigarh5Nagpur4Patna4Cochin4Agra2SC2Calcutta1Dehradun1Jabalpur1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Disallowance14Section 40A(7)10Section 143(3)10Addition to Income10Condonation of Delay10Section 40A(3)9Section 2637Limitation/Time-bar7Penalty

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

ITA 550/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 40A(3)

delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals. “1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance made by CPC,IT Department Bengaluru vide order passed u/s 154 without providing any opportunity to object the proposed rectification on account of cash payments to MPPKVVCL (a government

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

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

7
Section 143(1)6
Section 1544
Section 271(1)(c)4
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

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246(1)(a)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 40A(7)Section 43B

condoning the delay, despite having sufficient reasons. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154, but the same was pending before the CPC. As there was no fruitful results received from the CPC, the assessee filed statutory first appeal with delay

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 216/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

40a(ia) and has overlooked the findings of the AO mentioned in the assessment order. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,37,512/- made on account of disallowance of Communication Expenses, Conveyance Expenses, Water & Electricity, Office Running & Maintenance

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

ITA 217/IND/2021[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

40a(ia) and has overlooked the findings of the AO mentioned in the assessment order. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,37,512/- made on account of disallowance of Communication Expenses, Conveyance Expenses, Water & Electricity, Office Running & Maintenance

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 232/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

40a(ia) and has overlooked the findings of the AO mentioned in the assessment order. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,37,512/- made on account of disallowance of Communication Expenses, Conveyance Expenses, Water & Electricity, Office Running & Maintenance

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

BHARAT JAROLI,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 753/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Jaroli, Pr. Cit, B.No. 45, 1, Kila Road, Ujjain बनाम/ Mahaveer Bagh, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aanpj5994K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

delay may kindly be condoned considering the explanation attached. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on facts contrary to the records of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234Section 40

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

KISHAN ASSUDANI,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 749/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikishan Assudani, Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Prop. Kishan Assudani, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Mainroad, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aeupa8876Q) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act without pin-pointing any single instance of cash payment above Rs.20,000/- in a single day to a single person and without properly appreciating the actual facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

condoned taking into account the revenue’s solemn averments made in the affidavit to the effect that owning to engagements of AO and his subordinate staff in completing cases of assessments and re-assessments, there occurred delay. We follow the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

condoned taking into account the revenue’s solemn averments made in the affidavit to the effect that owning to engagements of AO and his subordinate staff in completing cases of assessments and re-assessments, there occurred delay. We follow the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others

SHAHANSHAH DAL MILL,BHOPAL vs. ITO-5(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 335/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(2)Section 147

7. The assessee has claimed interest of Rs 21,11,436/- on unsecured loan\nreceived from various 9 parties for the period of 01.04.14 to 31.03.15. In\nThird Para of his reply the assessee submitted that - \"no interest has been\npaid in respect to earlier period of the year under consideration i.e. from \"1st\nApril 2014 - 16 June

SATYAPRAKASH CHOUHAN,MHOW vs. ITO 5 (3) , INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 169/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Satyaprakash Ito-5(3), Chouhan, Indore 14, Geeta Bhawan Chouhraha Chakkiwale बनाम/ Mahadeo Complex, Vs. Mhow

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 69A

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The brief facts are such that the assessee-individual is engaged in the business of trading of cement and sanitary items. For AY 2017-18, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,12,790/- alongwith audited financial statements. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

ITA 218/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ruchira SinghalFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

ITA 219/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ruchira SinghalFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue is treated as filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting