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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 117clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai165Delhi127Karnataka124Mumbai124Kolkata61Bangalore45Raipur44Calcutta35Jaipur34Chandigarh29Hyderabad29Pune18Ahmedabad17Lucknow11Cuttack11Surat11Telangana8SC7Varanasi6Nagpur6Allahabad6Guwahati5Visakhapatnam4Jodhpur4Panaji4Amritsar4Rajasthan4Indore4Rajkot3Orissa2Cochin2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1546Section 115Section 143(1)5Section 143(1)(a)4Section 115B3Section 693Section 10B3Exemption3Section 139(9)

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

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

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

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

2
Addition to Income2
Disallowance2
Condonation of Delay2
ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 257/JODH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 8

117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 PAN No. AAATU 3935 G Assessee by Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. CIT-DR (Virtual) Revenue by Date of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. ORDER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

RAHUL JOSHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), BIKANER

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/JODH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 69

delay is condoned and appeal admitted on merits. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that Id. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee by observing that perusal of the information available on the insight portal reveals that the assessee has made trading in bitcoins to the extent