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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai596Chennai537Delhi418Kolkata327Bangalore271Jaipur181Karnataka181Ahmedabad179Hyderabad170Pune138Chandigarh133Indore72Amritsar60Lucknow58Cochin48Surat45Panaji42Rajkot41Calcutta41Raipur39Visakhapatnam34Guwahati27Nagpur24Patna21Cuttack20SC17Telangana13Agra13Allahabad9Varanasi9Jabalpur9Dehradun7Jodhpur6Ranchi5Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Section 1488Addition to Income8Section 1477Limitation/Time-bar5Section 1444Section 2644Section 44A4Section 250

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 151/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

condone the delay in the filing of the appeal and decided to reject that appeal. Besides this, in all three assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) brought on record the fact that he had issued several notices to the assessee to make its submissions with regard to the grounds raised in Form No. 35. However, the assessee failed to comply

4
Condonation of Delay4
Section 143(3)3
Cash Deposit2

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 149/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

condone the delay in the filing of the appeal and decided to reject that appeal. Besides this, in all three assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) brought on record the fact that he had issued several notices to the assessee to make its submissions with regard to the grounds raised in Form No. 35. However, the assessee failed to comply

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 explained is not falling within the provisions of section 273B of ITA 1961. I therefore hold that appellant has failed to meet the tests laid down in IT Act, 1961 and Ld.JAO has rightly imposed penalty. Dismissed also as the Hon'ble Cochin ITAT in the case of M/s. Paravur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No.105/Coch/2023

SURYA KUMAR GUPTA,ITARSI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 1, ITARSI

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

ITA 135/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Gupta Jewellers, Sarafa Bazar Ward-1, Itarsi

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

80,784/- was found in excess, as compared to the books of accounts. The assessee offered an additional income of Rs. 15,16,430/- on this account. Notices under section 142(1) were issued where the assessee was asked to explain the source of this excess stock worth Rs.15,16,430/- and why the same should not be brought

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,KATNI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1, KATNI

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

ITA 106/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69A

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 and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s I.T.A. No.106/JAB/2024 Assessment

RAVIKANT KHARE,TIKAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , TIKAMGARH

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

ITA 37/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

80,120/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order I.T.A. No.37/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2013-14 2 on 25/12/2018 under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,21,120/- by making addition of Rs.2,15,000/- on account of unexplained money

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

ITA 83/JAB/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: \nSh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

delay. Thereafter, relying upon various case laws he held\nthat the assessee was guilty of gross negligence and inaction and therefore, he\ndismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.\n4. Aggrieved with the in limine disposal of its appeal, the assessee has\ncome in appeal before us. Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the\nld. AR) submitted

NAGENDRA SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2(5) , JABALPUR

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

ITA 53/JAB/2021[F.Y. 2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Jan 2022

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nagendra Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer Vs. Ward - 2(5), Gwalior Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Ctops 5067G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mahesh Agarwal, Fca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2022

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide Order dated 25/10/2019. 2. At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the appeal is delayed by 29 days. There is, however, a condonation petition on record, which states that though the papers for preparation and filing

RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA

ITA 107/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 254Section 264

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, beyond the control of the appellant and the appellant was not benefitted from filing the appeal belatedly and even otherwise after the order passed by Hon'ble High court which was implemented by the learned PCIT the date