Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

193 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai575 Chennai527 Delhi406 Kolkata312 Pune280 Bangalore254 Ahmedabad215 Hyderabad197 Jaipur193 Karnataka181 Chandigarh170 Visakhapatnam101 Cochin78 Indore69 Amritsar64 Lucknow59 Surat46 Rajkot43 Panaji42 Calcutta41 Raipur40 Cuttack35 Guwahati31 Nagpur25 Patna21 SC17 Agra16 Telangana13 Allahabad12 Jabalpur10 Jodhpur9 Varanasi9 Dehradun7 Ranchi5 Orissa3 Andhra Pradesh2 Rajasthan2 Himachal Pradesh1 Kerala1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 12A76 Addition to Income57 Condonation of Delay44 Section 80G41 Section 26331 Section 25030 Section 271B30 Limitation/Time-bar30 Section 143(3)

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

Condonation of Delay—Claim for deduction under Section 80-O made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 193 · Page 1 of 10

...

29

Natural Justice26

ITAT Jaipur

04 Jun 2025

AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

condonation of delay as under :- "9. The main issue raised by the assessee in this case is that the delay in audit has led to delay in filing of return which had led to his claim of 80IB(10) being disallowed and this had caused genuine hardship to him. It should be noted first that disallowance of any claim will

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

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 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

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80P

condone the delay, then your honoe is also having the power being higher forum then to PCIT. 10 ITA NO.772/JP/2023 THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD under section 80

SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 100/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80ASection 80I

delay can be condoned. Further, as rightly held by the learned CIT (A), the Courts have held that due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided u/s 139(4). In view of this reason also, the order of CIT (A) is to be upheld." (e) That for these and some

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

ITA 292/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Condonation of Delay—Claim for deduction under Section 80-O made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

ITA 318/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)

Condonation of Delay—Claim for deduction under Section 80-O made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

ITA 317/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)

Condonation of Delay—Claim for deduction under Section 80-O made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year

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

80,35,820/- by considering cash deposit into bank account (Current Account) to be Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred

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

80,35,820/- by considering cash deposit into bank account (Current Account) to be Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred

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

80,35,820/- by considering cash deposit into bank account (Current Account) to be Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred

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

80,35,820/- by considering cash deposit into bank account (Current Account) to be Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred

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

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

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

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

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

ITA 69/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 80

Condonation of Delay-Claim for deduction under Section 80-0 made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

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

ITA 73/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 80

Condonation of Delay-Claim for deduction under Section 80-0 made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year

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

Condonation of Delay-Claim for deduction under Section 80-0 made by Assessee was disallowed by A0 for Assessment Year

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

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

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above)\nand being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is\ndismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be\ntaken upon merits.\n5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.\n7. As the assessee