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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(24)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai264Delhi216Mumbai173Kolkata124Karnataka100Jaipur95Chandigarh91Bangalore79Nagpur68Ahmedabad57Raipur49Hyderabad45Pune40Calcutta37Cochin31Lucknow30Indore30Cuttack24Surat23Visakhapatnam18SC15Amritsar10Telangana9Jodhpur7Varanasi6Allahabad5Guwahati5Panaji4Patna3Agra3Orissa2Rajkot2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 43B10Section 36(1)(va)10Section 1548Limitation/Time-bar5Section 143(1)4Addition to Income4Condonation of Delay4Section 2(24)(x)2Section 250

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

X 9000.00). The total value of the property including land and 10 shops comes to Rs. 11 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 34,50,000.00 (Rs. 31,75,000.00 + Rs. 2,50,000.00). The AR of the assessee also submitted that the report of the DVO should not be taken as the basis for calculating the cost

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

2
Section 250(6)2
Section 250

X 9000.00). The total value of the property including land and 10 shops comes to Rs. 11 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 34,50,000.00 (Rs. 31,75,000.00 + Rs. 2,50,000.00). The AR of the assessee also submitted that the report of the DVO should not be taken as the basis for calculating the cost

ROHITASH KUMAR ,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-4,, SRIGANGANAGAR

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

ITA 22/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay is condoned. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31-10-2018 declaring total income at Rs.97,240/- which was processed by the CPC, Banglore on 26-04-2019 determining total income at Rs.15,99,420/- in which an adjustment of Rs.15,02,180/- was made to the return

ACME INDUSTRIES,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay is condoned. 3.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 for adjudication. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed the ITR on 25-09-2018 declaring total income at Rs.27,75,370/-. Order u/s 143(1) was passed on 16-10-2019 at assessed income

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)

Section under which notice issued Date of Remarks issuance 1. 142(1)/143(2) 18-08-2010 None attended 2. 142(1)/143(2) 20-08-2010 None attended Seema Pandi vs. ITO. 3. 142(1)/143(2) 07-01-2011 None attended 4. 142(1)/143(2) 31-01-2011 None attended 5. 142(1)/143(2

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)

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond its control. Therefore the same is 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

BABA BEARINGS PVT LTD,BORANADA vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 59/JODH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condoned. 3 BABA BEARINGS PVT LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 3(3), JDOHPUR 3.1 The solitary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal relates to late deposit of employees contribution towards PF and ESI. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 25-09-2018 alongwith the Tax Audit Report. The CPC, Bangalore