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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai638Mumbai549Delhi504Pune345Kolkata321Hyderabad264Ahmedabad210Bangalore205Jaipur198Karnataka146Chandigarh98Raipur90Nagpur71Indore66Surat60Visakhapatnam50Amritsar49Lucknow48Calcutta48Cuttack48Cochin46Rajkot32SC23Telangana18Varanasi17Allahabad15Jodhpur12Panaji12Patna11Agra11Dehradun8Guwahati7Rajasthan5Ranchi3Orissa3Jabalpur3Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 234E54Section 200A24Section 15418Section 1397Section 139(1)7Section 201(2)6Section 201(1)6Section 139(9)6TDS

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21
Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(4)(a)Section 143(1)

38,834/- incurred by the assessee to earn such receipt. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 30.11.2002. It is registered with Devasthan Vibhag

6
Addition to Income4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Disallowance3

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

delay of 208 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. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “i). That

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 107/JODH/2019[2016-17 (26 Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 109/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q- 1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 110/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26Q - 3)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 112/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q - 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 106/JODH/2019[2016-17 (26Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

COUNTRY ART AND CRAFT LLP,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriRajendra Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. That the appellate order dt.30.07.2021as passed by the CIT(A), 1. National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi in the appellants case is bad in law and on facts as far as the addition sustained for Rs. 335836,00 is concerned which deserves to be vitiated

KAPIL MARLECHA,PALI vs. ITO,WARD-3,, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 248/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.01.2018 declaring income of Rs.2,36,420/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of cash deposits during the demonetisation period. 4.1 The AO noticed

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 95/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Joshi, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

condoned as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. admitted. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, we may observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.71 & 72/Jodh/2021, decided on 28/09/21, wherein the Tribunal has deleted the disallowance made

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 96/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Joshi, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

condoned as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. admitted. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, we may observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.71 & 72/Jodh/2021, decided on 28/09/21, wherein the Tribunal has deleted the disallowance made