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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 83clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna490Mumbai410Chennai405Delhi391Kolkata287Bangalore170Hyderabad163Ahmedabad129Karnataka124Pune119Chandigarh114Jaipur108Nagpur100Indore68Surat63Rajkot53Calcutta41Lucknow39Cuttack38Cochin36Panaji36Amritsar26Raipur19Visakhapatnam13Agra13Guwahati12SC11Varanasi6Telangana5Jabalpur5Jodhpur3Allahabad3Ranchi3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Section 1488Section 143(1)7Section 1476Section 143(3)4Section 148(1)4Section 114Deduction3Disallowance

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)

condone the delay in filing Form 10B. I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2020-21 9 5.3 As regard appellant’s appeal against taxing the entire receipts instead of taxing the income over expenditure, it is stated that facts involved in the issue is that the appellant had disclosed gross receipts of Rs.1,27,76,341/- in the ITR and claimed expenses

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

3
Addition to Income3
Section 1392
Capital Gains2

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

83,23,784/- as against shown in the return of income filed at Rs. 34,53,548 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with

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

83,23,784/- as against shown in the return of income filed at Rs. 34,53,548 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

ITA 60/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

ITA 134/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that