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.

52 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 275(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka102Mumbai65Chandigarh61Ahmedabad54Delhi54Jaipur52Chennai43Kolkata40Hyderabad34Bangalore32Surat25Cuttack13Nagpur13Lucknow10Pune9Indore7Cochin7Patna4Visakhapatnam3Panaji3Rajkot2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Agra1Raipur1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271C66Section 20155Section 143(3)49Condonation of Delay37Section 26331Addition to Income26Limitation/Time-bar18Penalty16Section 2(15)

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

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

15
TDS14
Section 25011
Section 201(1)11

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

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

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 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

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

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 1008/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for\ndiscussions, and on this aspect of the matter

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 1009/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for\ndiscussions, and on this aspect of the matter

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 116/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 1/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 279/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)
Section 263Section 5

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)
Section 263Section 5

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

delay of two days in filing\nthe appeal by the assessee is condoned.\n5.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:\n“1. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts of the case in confirming the validity of\nthe impugned notice u/s 148A of the Act as also the notice issued

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

ITA 185/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh Sunil Kumar UppaddhayFor Respondent: Sh. James Kurian, (CIT) &
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

delay had not been condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 5.5. So far as the ment of the penalty order is concerned, the appellant was required to deduct tax at source on the payment made EDCs. The appellant was asked to furnish written submission in support of the grounds raised. Except for quoting the provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

ITA 184/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh Sunil Kumar UppaddhayFor Respondent: Sh. James Kurian, (CIT) &
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

delay had not been condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 5.5. So far as the ment of the penalty order is concerned, the appellant was required to deduct tax at source on the payment made EDCs. The appellant was asked to furnish written submission in support of the grounds raised. Except for quoting the provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSADY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

ITA 183/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh Sunil Kumar UppaddhayFor Respondent: Sh. James Kurian, (CIT) &
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

delay had not been condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 5.5. So far as the ment of the penalty order is concerned, the appellant was required to deduct tax at source on the payment made EDCs. The appellant was asked to furnish written submission in support of the grounds raised. Except for quoting the provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

ITA 182/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh Sunil Kumar UppaddhayFor Respondent: Sh. James Kurian, (CIT) &
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

delay had not been condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 5.5. So far as the ment of the penalty order is concerned, the appellant was required to deduct tax at source on the payment made EDCs. The appellant was asked to furnish written submission in support of the grounds raised. Except for quoting the provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

ITA 181/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh Sunil Kumar UppaddhayFor Respondent: Sh. James Kurian, (CIT) &
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

delay had not been condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 5.5. So far as the ment of the penalty order is concerned, the appellant was required to deduct tax at source on the payment made EDCs. The appellant was asked to furnish written submission in support of the grounds raised. Except for quoting the provision of Section 275