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.

60 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 79clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai422Mumbai338Kolkata223Delhi205Ahmedabad142Karnataka136Bangalore118Hyderabad103Jaipur101Indore60Chandigarh58Surat58Pune42Rajkot41Cuttack41Calcutta41Amritsar39Raipur31Visakhapatnam31Nagpur22Lucknow22Cochin19Patna12SC8Guwahati8Telangana7Allahabad7Agra6Dehradun5Jodhpur5Panaji4Orissa4Varanasi4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Rajasthan2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14438Addition to Income38Condonation of Delay34Section 143(3)32Disallowance29Section 14727Section 14821Section 26319Section 250

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

79,719/- u/s\n143(3) of the Act. The assessee had filed the return of income for\nRs.18,76,940/- and other exempt income of Rs.90,65,981/-. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny. Notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued from time to time. The assessee made a detailed\nsubmission along with the documentary evidences regarding

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 25312
Section 6912
Unexplained Investment12
ITAT Indore
19 Nov 2019
AY 1974-75

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

79,031/-. Up to 1992 there was no delay on the part of the department as the time was consumed in legal process and perhaps refund has not arisen. By its own admission the assessee filed application before CBDT for condonation of delay in making balance payment. CBDT issued order u/s 119(2)(c) on 16.07.1999. that means delay

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)

79,031/-. Up to 1992 there was no delay on the part of the department as the time was consumed in legal process and perhaps refund has not arisen. By its own admission the assessee filed application before CBDT for condonation of delay in making balance payment. CBDT issued order u/s 119(2)(c) on 16.07.1999. that means delay

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)

79,031/-. Up to 1992 there was no delay on the part of the department as the time was consumed in legal process and perhaps refund has not arisen. By its own admission the assessee filed application before CBDT for condonation of delay in making balance payment. CBDT issued order u/s 119(2)(c) on 16.07.1999. that means delay

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

ITA 661/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 45Section 56Section 57

79,657/-under section 45, made to the income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,12,817/- under section 56, made to the income of the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

ITA 406/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

79,754/- in terms of Section 144/147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” preferred an first appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and who by impugned order at para 3.4 has observed and avered

LAL SAHAB CHOUREY,HOSHANGABAD, M.P. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS/ NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 912/IND/2024[2019 - 2020]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

79 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. We Page 3 of 8 Lal Sahab Chourey ITA. No.912/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2019-20 observe that the “impugned order” is dated 17.08.2024. The appeal was filed on 25.12.2024. It ought to have been filed on or before 07.10.2024 i.e. 60 days time limit. The assessee has placed a condonation of delay

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 649/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253

79, Lamba Kheda, Delhi Vs. Besaria Road, Bhopal (PAN: EIXPS7673N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sanya Farihez Memon, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: The assessee has filed the present appeal Under Section 253 of the Income

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 650/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253

79, Lamba Kheda, Delhi Vs. Besaria Road, Bhopal (PAN: EIXPS7673N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sanya Farihez Memon, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: The assessee has filed the present appeal Under Section 253 of the Income

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

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250

section 253(5)\nand the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view,\ncondone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n4.\nThe background facts leading to this appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total\nincome of Rs.9,79,790/- from different sources

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

ITA 279/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

ITA 280/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

ITA 281/IND/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

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

FREQUENT STOCK AND SHARES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

79 & 80/Ind/2025\nAYs: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14\nITA No.\nA.Y.\nImpugned order\nOriginal proceedings\nMotika Finance Limited\n1\n75/Ind/2025\n2011-12\nOrder of first-appeal\ndated 20.06.2023 passed\nby CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi\nAssessment-order dated\n30.12.2018 passed by\nACIT-3(1), Indore u/s\n148 r.w.s.143(3)\n2\n77/Ind/2025\n2012-13\nOrder of first-appeal\ndated 20.06.2023 passed

ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKRI SAMITI MYDT FOOLMAL,ALIRAJPUR vs. ITO, JHABUA, JHABUA

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

ITA 694/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

section 253 of\nthe income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act\nfor the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as\nand by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by\nthe\norder\nbearing\nNumber:-ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-\n25/1067153793(1) dated 30/07/2024\npassed by the Ld.\nCIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

ITA 199/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

Section 115JSection 253Section 263

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.18,14,79,168/- which was set off entirely against the brought forward loss

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

ITA 480/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2023- 24/1055303221(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition