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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 56(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai622Mumbai512Delhi455Kolkata314Bangalore261Ahmedabad180Hyderabad180Jaipur169Pune146Karnataka144Chandigarh128Nagpur84Visakhapatnam64Lucknow62Surat54Indore52Amritsar50Calcutta47Panaji37Rajkot36Cochin34Raipur26Patna19SC17Guwahati16Cuttack15Varanasi13Jabalpur12Telangana12Allahabad9Dehradun6Jodhpur6Agra5Orissa2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 69A10Section 1479Section 270A8Section 115B8Addition to Income8Penalty7Condonation of Delay6Cash Deposit5Section 271A

PRAGYA SAVITA,JABALPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1) ,JABALPUR , JABALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Pragya Savita, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1197-A, Sadar, Modi Bada, Cantt, Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001 Jabalpur Pan:Axyps7485A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 27.10.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Dated 17.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (A) Nafc Was Wrong In Law For Not Allowing The Deduction For Payment Of Rs. 56,39,017/- Under Section 36(1)(Vi) On Account Of Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic Amount. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic On Or Before Due Date For Furnishing Return Of Income Under Sub-Section (1) Of Section 139 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Employer Is Entitled For Deduction. 2. That The Both Employee Contribution Epf Rs.49,38,777/- & Esic Rs.70,0240/- Total Rs. 59,39,107/-Which Has Been Deposited With A Small Delay Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Covid-19. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Before Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)
4
Section 564
Section 143(3)4
Section 2503
Section 234A
Section 234B
Section 234C
Section 250
Section 36(1)(vi)

56,39,017/- under section 36(1)(vi) on account of employee contribution of EPF and ESIC amount. Whereas the assessee had deposited the employee contribution of EPF & ESIC on or before due date for furnishing return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of Income tax act, 1961. Employer is entitled for deduction. 2. That the both

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of 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

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of 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

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of 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

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of 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

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,REWA vs. ITO- WARD-1, REWA

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

ITA 160/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/JAB/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/JAB/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

SUMAN JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SAGAR

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

ITA 99/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

1 O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.99/JBP/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 22/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063171464(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed

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)

56,901) and liquidated damages (Rs. 1 Yuvika Alloys v. ITO 1,32,137), i.e., aggregating to Rs. 2,89,038, to the returned income, assessing the income at Rs.6,48,980. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, due to the sickness of the partner of the assessee-firm who was looking

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

ITA 152/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2011-12

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 143(3)Section 250Section 69

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of AIR information according to which the assessee had purchased land. The ld. AO observed that with regard to a sum of Rs.701000/-, the assesseee submitted a written response that

JAIN WARE HOUSE,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 2(24)(xviii)Section 250Section 69A

1) and 143(2) along with a show cause notice, the assessee did not make effective compliance to the queries raised by him. He pointed out that there was information with him that the assessee had received Rs.21,24,000/- as rent on which tax was deducted under section 194IB of the Income Tax Act and there was also information