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.

280 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,149Mumbai933Delhi829Kolkata569Bangalore430Pune363Hyderabad338Ahmedabad320Jaipur280Patna186Karnataka169Visakhapatnam158Nagpur154Chandigarh134Surat130Indore114Cochin94Lucknow92Cuttack88Raipur81Amritsar69Panaji46Calcutta40SC38Rajkot36Jodhpur33Guwahati26Agra25Telangana17Allahabad17Jabalpur12Varanasi12Dehradun9Ranchi5Orissa4Rajasthan4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2Kerala1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 12A65Condonation of Delay56Addition to Income55Section 26340Limitation/Time-bar34Exemption32Section 80G31Section 143(3)31Disallowance

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

e-mail is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-1. Therefore, the Assessee was of the opinion that he could file the copy prior to 30.06.2022 and the same would not be treated as barred by limitation. However, I humbly request to you to kindly condone the delay in the instant case.” 3 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT 3. During

Showing 1–20 of 280 · Page 1 of 14

...
28
Section 1127
Deduction23
Section 25020

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income. Subsequently, a notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee on 14/05/2012 and the assessment was completed by the A.O. U/s 147 r.w.s

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

e-mail id as a result of which certain mail received by the assessee remain unattended. It is further submitted that the assessee came to know about the order later when assessee received a show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein it was show caused why the penalty should not be imposed. It is further submitted

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 666/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act [Here in after referred as “Act” ], by the DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur. ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 Jodhpur Development Authority 2. Since, the facts of both the cases are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order together. The facts and grounds are taken from the folder of Jodhpur

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act [Here in after referred as “Act” ], by the DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur. ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 Jodhpur Development Authority 2. Since, the facts of both the cases are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order together. The facts and grounds are taken from the folder of Jodhpur

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

e-Assessment Centre (NEC) in Delhi is the single communication point for taxpayers and assessment units. • NEC issues notices under Section 143(2) and allocates cases to assessment units through an automated system, ensuring anonymity and eliminating personal interface. • The process replaces territorial jurisdiction with dynamic jurisdiction, so the assessee is unaware of the officer’s identity or location

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

e-Assessment Centre (NEC) in Delhi is the single communication point for taxpayers and assessment units. • NEC issues notices under Section 143(2) and allocates cases to assessment units through an automated system, ensuring anonymity and eliminating personal interface. • The process replaces territorial jurisdiction with dynamic jurisdiction, so the assessee is unaware of the officer’s identity or location

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

e-Assessment Centre (NEC) in Delhi is the single communication point for taxpayers and assessment units. • NEC issues notices under Section 143(2) and allocates cases to assessment units through an automated system, ensuring anonymity and eliminating personal interface. • The process replaces territorial jurisdiction with dynamic jurisdiction, so the assessee is unaware of the officer’s identity or location

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

e-Assessment Centre (NEC) in Delhi is the single communication point for taxpayers and assessment units. • NEC issues notices under Section 143(2) and allocates cases to assessment units through an automated system, ensuring anonymity and eliminating personal interface. • The process replaces territorial jurisdiction with dynamic jurisdiction, so the assessee is unaware of the officer’s identity or location

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1007/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

section 143(3) & 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2, Kota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 1007 to 1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 630/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Add. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

22, 2019 which requires that audit report in Form 10B should be filed before the date specified under Section 139 is not found to be satisfied. ITAT also observes that the term 'specified date' defined in Explanation 1 to Section 139 for subject AY was June 30, 2016, however, the audit report was uploaded on June 21, 2019 which clearly

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JPR/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal. CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 5

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur has erred in withdrawing the registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(Exemptions) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 270/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

A.N. SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,SIKAR vs. JCIT-RANGE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 252/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Cuke J.C.I.T.-Range Vs. Radha Swami Bag, (Exemption) Sikar-303702 Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabaa 6164 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 06/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 272A(2)(E) Dated 02/11/2018 As Well As Notices Are Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,53,700/- U/S 272A(2)(E) Invoked By The Ld Jcit. The Penalty So Imposed & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)
Section 272A(2)(e)Section 272a(2)(e)Section 5

condone the delay of 132 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are that as per the revenue, the assessee trust was required to file its return of income U/s 139(4C)(e) of the Act by 31/07/2010 for the year under consideration. However, return in this case

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a
Section 10Section 22

2 and 6 of the impugned show cause notice clearly manifest that it was issued by the DCIT (Hqr.) and not by the CIT(E). The language of the show cause notice does not give any impression or inference that it is an expression of the satisfaction of ld. CIT(E). The Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in case

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 6/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1