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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 210clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai147Chennai135Karnataka133Delhi62Kolkata58Bangalore56Ahmedabad47Jaipur39Pune29Surat22Hyderabad21Chandigarh19Indore15Dehradun11Cuttack11Amritsar9Lucknow9Cochin6Jabalpur6Guwahati5Patna5Telangana5Visakhapatnam4Calcutta3Raipur3Varanasi2Panaji2Orissa1Rajasthan1SC1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 270A8Section 69A8Section 115B8Addition to Income5Condonation of Delay5Section 1474Section 271A4Section 564Cash Deposit

NAGENDRA PRATAP SINGH,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, SINGRAULI

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

ITA 195/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nagendra Pratap Singh V. Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S. Prem Kanta Indane, Itd, Singrauli-486788 Old Dudhichua Road, Singrauli- 486788. Tan/Pan:Asaps8528D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Cit(Dr-1) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. CIT(DR-1)
Section 144Section 148Section 148A

condone the delay of 10 days and admit the appeal for deciding the same on the basis of materials available on record. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partner of a firm namely M/s. B. Agrawal & Co, having its office at shown Sonebhadra (U.P). The assessee had filed his return of income

4
Penalty4

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

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

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

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

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

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

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

condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal without considered the merits of case. 3. That the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax department has grossly

YUVIKA ALLOYS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Yuvika Alloys, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward -1(1), Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan : Aabfy 1482H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajeev Nema, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2022

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

condone the delay. However, a perusal of his order (paras 6 to 8) reveals no adjudication on merits, as stated, so that it is only apparently or ostensibly so. The impugned order, in our view, does not therefore satisfy the clear mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. 5.3 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has in Swadeshi