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.

44 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 17clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,374Delhi1,365Mumbai1,266Pune789Kolkata747Bangalore639Hyderabad639Jaipur479Ahmedabad477Chandigarh270Nagpur225Surat212Visakhapatnam210Karnataka186Raipur180Amritsar151Indore140Cochin136Cuttack124Rajkot104Lucknow96Panaji65Patna63Calcutta58Guwahati46SC45Jodhpur44Dehradun31Allahabad26Agra23Telangana23Varanasi19Ranchi14Jabalpur9Kerala7Rajasthan6Orissa5Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 234E67Section 15430Section 200A28Condonation of Delay23Section 12A22Addition to Income19Section 1117Section 14713Limitation/Time-bar

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

condonation of delay as per CBDT Circulars No. 02/2020 dated 03.01.2020 issued vide F.No.- 197/55/2018-ITA-I (For Form-10B). (F) It is also worthwhile to mention here that Hon’ble CBDT vide its circular (1/1148- CBDT F. No. 267/482/77-IT (Part) dated February 9, 1978--CBDT Bulletin Tech. XXIII/582.) (P.B.- 23) clarified that the exemption as available to trust under section

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

13
Disallowance13
Section 14410
Section 143(1)10
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

condonation of delay as per CBDT Circulars No. 02/2020 dated 03.01.2020 issued vide F.No.- 197/55/2018-ITA-I (For Form-10B). (F) It is also worthwhile to mention here that Hon’ble CBDT vide its circular (1/1148- CBDT F. No. 267/482/77-IT (Part) dated February 9, 1978--CBDT Bulletin Tech. XXIII/582.) (P.B.- 23) clarified that the exemption as available to trust under section

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/JODH/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/JODH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7/JODH/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/JODH/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

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)

17 /07/2023 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur [herein after “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 29.09.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 302/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

SHRI SANATAN DHARAM SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned order dated 24

ITA 95/JODH/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur, An Application U/S 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), In Form 10Ab To Seek Its Registration.

For Appellant: Sh. Deewakar Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka, CIT(DR)
Section 12Section 12A

section 12 AB, the applicant applied for its registration under RPT Act and same is still pending before the competent authority, as submitted by Learned AR for the applicant. Having regard to this claim regarding bona fide claim , we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 9. While arguing the appeal

KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 334/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 202Section 250Section 250(6)

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both