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.

102 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna485Chennai361Pune339Delhi325Mumbai303Bangalore244Kolkata132Karnataka123Hyderabad114Jaipur102Nagpur84Surat57Raipur57Ahmedabad44Panaji43Calcutta36Chandigarh33Cochin27Lucknow23Cuttack22Indore21Dehradun19Visakhapatnam18Amritsar12Rajkot10Agra8Guwahati7SC4Jabalpur3Jodhpur3Allahabad2Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay59Addition to Income58Section 143(3)56Limitation/Time-bar42Section 26337Section 14828Section 25027Deduction22Section 147

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

condonation as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

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

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

19
Section 14418
Section 6817
Section 153C16

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

condonation as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

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

condonation as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

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

condonation as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

section 144 2 Ishan Arora vs. ITO r.w.s. 147 of the Act by ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning the same, despite existence

JAIRAJ SINGH SOLANKI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 896/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234Section 69A

condonation of delay ignoring the sufficient material and evidences available on record, being the strong case on merit. Hence the order so passed by the Id. CIT(A) in gross breach of law and against the principal of natural justice and liable to be quashed and entire additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be deleted. 3.1. Rs.9

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

section 5 of the Act of 1963, delay should be condoned where ‘sufficient cause’ is established by the Applicant. It is settled law that, the term ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless and until delay is found to be deliberate / intentional/ grossly negligent or aimed at taking undue advantage by creating groundless

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 740/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154

section 11 & 12. Not only that, even the dead line extended by the board was up to 365 days whereas in this case delay is much beyond. Thus, the same is rightly denied to the assessee by the CPC. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee placed

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 932 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 1512/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT NITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 1510/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 1513/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 1506/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 1507/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR

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

ITA 1508/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 1511/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 1509/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

BHAWANI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 471/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

delay of 419 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

ITA 306/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Gogra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 249Section 40A(3)Section 5

condoning the delay in e-filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and also by holding that since the appeal was manually filed by the assessee before the CIT (A) was within the limitation, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is to be treated as filed within limitation. With these observations, we allow this additional ground raised