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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai305Kolkata201Mumbai167Delhi119Pune101Hyderabad100Karnataka100Bangalore97Jaipur62Indore55Chandigarh55Ahmedabad53Visakhapatnam39Cochin38Panaji36Cuttack26Surat21Rajkot18Raipur17Amritsar14Nagpur14Patna12Lucknow9Agra5Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Calcutta2Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh2Dehradun2Guwahati2Rajasthan1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Section 44A4Section 2634Section 148(1)4Revision u/s 2634Section 271B3Capital Gains3Section 2712Section 452

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

ITA 60/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)

u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

ITA 134/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Section 482
Limitation/Time-bar2
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)

u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government

M/S. VALLABH MARKET,GADARWARA vs. PR. CIT-1, , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 12/JAB/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(1)

263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the “Act” hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. There was delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal which has been condoned by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of seven partners in the business of builders

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

delay explained is not falling within the provisions of section 273B of ITA 1961. I therefore hold that appellant has failed to meet the tests laid down in IT Act, 1961 and Ld.JAO has rightly imposed penalty. Dismissed also as the Hon'ble Cochin ITAT in the case of M/s. Paravur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No.105/Coch/2023

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 57/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45Section 48Section 50C

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 27.02.2019 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jabalpur (‘Pr. CIT’ for short) qua his assessment u/s. 143(3) for assessment year 2014-15 vide order dated 6.10.2016. 2. At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the instant appeal is time barred by limitation