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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata159Mumbai156Delhi117Karnataka101Chennai97Bangalore78Jaipur65Surat62Ahmedabad58Hyderabad39Pune36Indore25Visakhapatnam22Lucknow16Rajkot12Cochin12Ranchi11Cuttack11Amritsar11Agra10Calcutta10Raipur10Chandigarh8Guwahati5Patna4Jabalpur4Nagpur4Varanasi3Jodhpur2Dehradun2Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)7Section 44A4Section 1444Section 114Section 271B3Penalty3Addition to Income3Section 2712Section 250

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)

274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order imposing a penalty should not be made under the said section in view of the A.Y. 2018-19 Amit Kumar Yadav fact that a sum of Rs.2,71,21,811/- had been determined as the tax under section 115BBE along with surcharge and cess on the same

2
Section 272A(1)(d)2
Cash Deposit2

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)

274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order imposing a penalty should not be made under the said section in view of the A.Y. 2018-19 Amit Kumar Yadav fact that a sum of Rs.2,71,21,811/- had been determined as the tax under section 115BBE along with surcharge and cess on the same

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 in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B.1) In this case, order under section 271B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) levying penalty amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, by the AO vide order dated 28.03.2019 passed u/s 271B of I.T. Act. The relevant portion

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)

274 (Mum-Trib.) We would like to reproduce brief order of the Hon'ble Kolkatta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Natwarlal NCH Chowdhury Charity Trust (supra), which reads as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee's right to accumulate