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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Surat50Chennai41Ahmedabad34Visakhapatnam30Mumbai26Pune24Lucknow20Indore17Cuttack16Kolkata15Hyderabad13Cochin11Bangalore10Delhi10Panaji10Patna9Rajkot8Jaipur7Amritsar6Chandigarh6Agra3Jabalpur3Raipur3SC2Jodhpur1Ranchi1Allahabad1Guwahati1Varanasi1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 1447Section 2505Section 271A3Penalty3Addition to Income3Section 272A(1)(d)2Cash Deposit2

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) had been filed after a delay of 780 days and the appeal against the order under section 271AAC(1) had been filed after a delay of 765 days. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) held that before the appeals could be admitted, it had to first be adjudicated as to whether such delay could be condoned

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) had been filed after a delay of 780 days and the appeal against the order under section 271AAC(1) had been filed after a delay of 765 days. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) held that before the appeals could be admitted, it had to first be adjudicated as to whether such delay could be condoned

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 194CSection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40

272A(1)(d) of the IT Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and against the principles of natural justice. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, charging of interest under sec. 234B at Rs. 9,13,110/- and Rs. 1,16,883/- under sec. 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. The same