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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 19clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,344Delhi1,271Mumbai1,252Kolkata721Pune693Bangalore553Hyderabad440Jaipur379Ahmedabad371Chandigarh217Nagpur214Raipur176Karnataka165Surat159Visakhapatnam159Amritsar127Lucknow126Indore118Rajkot99Cuttack85Cochin81Panaji76Patna54Calcutta51SC43Guwahati33Agra28Telangana26Allahabad23Jodhpur20Varanasi19Dehradun13Jabalpur7Orissa6Ranchi6Kerala5Himachal Pradesh5Rajasthan5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14817Section 1116Section 1478Section 143(1)7Addition to Income7Section 148A5Section 12A5Section 115B4Charitable Trust

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

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

ITA 159/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been raised at any stage is erroneous and bad in law. 5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied

2
Exemption2

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

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

ITA 160/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been raised at any stage is erroneous and bad in law. 5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

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

ITA 158/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been raised at any stage is erroneous and bad in law. 5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

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

ITA 161/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been raised at any stage is erroneous and bad in law. 5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied

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)

condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal after going through the facts of the case took note of the latter circular issued by I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2020-21 10 the Board in Circular No. 16 of 2022 dated 19-07-2022 issued under Section

SANGEET GUPTA,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

section 271AAC. Aggrieved by this order dated 23.03.2023, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC on 24.08.2023 along with a condonation petition to explain the delay of 123 days. It was submitted that the reason for the delay was that the assessee’s husband had been charged in a police case by the Unchehara Police Station of Satna District

ATHITHEYAM NYAS,ANUPPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL,, BHOPAL

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

ITA 107/JAB/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-Na Athitheyam Nyas, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax C/O Kalyan Sewa Ashram, Amraknatk (Exemption), Bhopal Dt-Anuppur, M.P. 484886 Pan:Aakta1783A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.C. Bardia & Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.As. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Bhopal Wherein The Ld. Cit (Exemption) Has Rejected The Application Filed By The Assessee In Form No. 10Ab For Registration Under Section 12B Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That Without Considering The Reply E Filed/Mailed Dated 20.03.2024, The Cit(Exemp) Erred In Cancelling The Provisional Registration Granted On 28.11.2023 & Rejecting 10Ab Form For Permanent Registration Vide Order Dated 21.03.2025 Due To Non-Submission Of Reply To Notice Dated 13.03.2025 Up To 18.03.2025 Alleging: - 1. Failure To Explain The Reason For Delay In Filling Form 10Ab Without Considering Fresh/Corrected 10Ab Form Filed On 18.03.2025 U/S 12A(Ac)(1)(Vi)(B) Under New Law. 2. Not Justifying Dissolution Clause No. 23 Allowing Use Of Funds By The Settlors/Trustees- Without Referring Clause No. 19,20, 21 & 22 Of The Trust Deed. 3. The Trust Is Irrevocable- Not Correct-Without Referring Irrevocable Clause No. 19 Of The Trust Deed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Bardia & Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AsFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12B

19 of the trust deed. 1 Athitheyam Nyas 4. The trust running hotel on commercial basis and not a Dharmashala for charitable purpose-without referring trust Registration order etc. 2. That the CIT (Exemp) erred in rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB for permanent registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) on 23.09.2024 instead of extended