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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai777Delhi700Mumbai557Kolkata339Pune253Bangalore220Surat200Hyderabad195Ahmedabad168Jaipur159Karnataka145Indore131Chandigarh121Raipur114Amritsar109Nagpur103Panaji77Visakhapatnam66Cochin65Lucknow57Cuttack48Calcutta38Rajkot36Jodhpur32SC28Varanasi19Patna17Telangana17Allahabad14Guwahati10Jabalpur8Dehradun6Rajasthan6Orissa3Agra2Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Section 1478Section 270A8Section 69A8Section 115B8Section 1488Section 143(1)7Addition to Income7Section 271A

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

34 of this reply, hence AO may kindly be directed to consider income of the assessee as NIL instead of Rs 17,41,999/-. 2. In the second ground of the appeal the assessee has contested the assessee society is a charitable institution and is registered under section 12A vide order dated F. No. CIT-I/JBP/TECH/80G/07/09-10 dated

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

4
Cash Deposit4
Penalty4
Condonation of Delay4

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 149/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

34,53,548 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 151/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

34,53,548 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

10% of the taxes levied U/s 115BBE of IT Act, 1961 at Rs. 2,51,34,360/- is not justified. 4. That the Assessee craves leave to raise any other ground/s on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

10% of the taxes levied U/s 115BBE of IT Act, 1961 at Rs. 2,51,34,360/- is not justified. 4. That the Assessee craves leave to raise any other ground/s on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

10% of the taxes levied U/s 115BBE of IT Act, 1961 at Rs. 2,51,34,360/- is not justified. 4. That the Assessee craves leave to raise any other ground/s on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR & Sh. Shrawan Kumar
Section 115BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 69A

10% of the taxes levied U/s 115BBE of IT Act, 1961 at Rs. 2,51,34,360/- is not justified. 4. That the Assessee craves leave to raise any other ground/s on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case

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)

section 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