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.

50 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 270A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai108Chennai83Chandigarh67Ahmedabad63Pune57Jaipur50Delhi43Bangalore33Hyderabad28Lucknow27Cochin25Kolkata25Patna22Indore19Visakhapatnam17Surat16Rajkot12Raipur10Cuttack10Nagpur9Jabalpur5Dehradun4Agra3Allahabad2Amritsar2Panaji2Guwahati2Jodhpur2Varanasi1Ranchi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 270A52Section 143(3)30Addition to Income28Limitation/Time-bar28Condonation of Delay27Penalty26Section 26324Section 14822Section 271D

SH. DAL CHAND SHARMA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 101/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

1,69,683/- and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.\n62 lacs made by AO by dismissing the appeal of assessee on technical\nissue.\n3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of\nappeal.\n4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.\"\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is 60 year\nold

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

15
Cash Deposit11
Section 69A10
Demonetization9
ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jaipur
27 Oct 2025
AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.\rFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT\r
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

ITA 658/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 270A

270A of the Act. To my mind\nthese reasons are absolutely casual in nature and no details of any nature have been\nfiled by the assessee. This application has been moved in a very casual and cavalier\nmanner without mentioning any sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay.\nHence, it is clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nSh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

270A", "Section 139"], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.\n2. Whether the salary income

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 423/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 422/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 425/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 563/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

ITA 32/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

condone the delay of 103 days in filing the\npresent appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.\n5.\nSuccinctly, the facts as culled out from the records is that return\ndeclaring an income of Rs.2,80,750/- was e-filed by the assessee on\n29.09.2010 and assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed on\n20.03.2013

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 562/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

270A of\nthe Income Tax Act.\n3.\nThat the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or\nwithdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal.\n\nGrounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025\n1\nThat both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of\nthe case in assuming jurisdiction

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 424/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

1) The appellant\n(2) The Respondent\n(3) CIT\nSd/-\n(DR. MITHA LAL MEENA)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n(4)CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy Order\nAssistant Registrar,\nI.T.A.T., Jaipur Benches, Jaipur.", "summary": { "facts": "The appeals were filed by the assessee challenging the rejection of appeals by the NFAC/CIT(A) due to delay

MGG INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms

ITA 728/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 244ASection 250Section 270A

270A(2) r.w.s.270A(8) of the Act, on account of interest on Income Tax Refund. Penalty proceedings under section 271A of the Act were initiated, and thus Penalty of Rs. 1,96,362/- was imposed under section 271A of the Act on 28/01/2022 on account of under reporting of income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 4 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

ITA 922/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5Section 69A

delay and the same is condoned.\n8. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that asessee is a company and derives income from retail and wholesale sale of woods, timber, laminates and adhesives and allied activities. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

ITA 398/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5Section 69A

delay of 41 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs.\nMst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause in bringing the present appeal with\ndelay and the same is condoned

PRIME ROSE CITY SCHOOL SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 280/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 270ASection 68

270A and 271AAC.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has not allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’In the light of above facts of the case at Point No. (i) to (xii), in absence of an application seeking proper condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, the non- submission

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

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach