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.

29 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 24clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,125Delhi967Mumbai943Kolkata703Pune537Hyderabad483Bangalore470Ahmedabad409Jaipur360Chandigarh192Karnataka186Nagpur154Visakhapatnam141Surat131Indore125Cochin123Amritsar113Raipur112Cuttack103Lucknow94Rajkot69Panaji67Patna52Calcutta49Guwahati34SC34Jodhpur29Telangana27Agra18Allahabad17Jabalpur15Varanasi14Ranchi7Rajasthan7Dehradun6Orissa6Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 234E67Section 200A28Section 15426Section 12A25Section 6815Condonation of Delay14Addition to Income13Section 143(1)12Section 11

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

condone such delay on the 279 TAXMAN 229 :(2021) authorities concerned. Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti vs. ITO(E) 202 DTR 39 (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the 16 CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied provision about furnishing of the auditor's report Industries [1993] 201 ITR along with the return

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

11
Disallowance11
Section 43B10
TDS8
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

condone such delay on the 279 TAXMAN 229 :(2021) authorities concerned. Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti vs. ITO(E) 202 DTR 39 (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the 16 CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied provision about furnishing of the auditor's report Industries [1993] 201 ITR along with the return

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

24-03-2021 in fling the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude

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

24-03-2021 in fling the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude

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

24-03-2021 in fling the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude

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

24-03-2021 in fling the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude

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

24-03-2021 in fling the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude

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 appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 18 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 20. 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

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 appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 18 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 20. 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

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST ,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The assessee herein is a charitable trust providing educational services. It runs a dental college under the name “Ahmedabad Dental College & Hospital”. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 22.3.1996 subject to certain conditions

GLOBAL HEALTH RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 153A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The assessee herein is a charitable trust providing educational services. It runs a medical college under the name “M/s Pacific Institute of Medical Science” in Udaipur. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 05.3.2001, subject

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

24 However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section

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

24 However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section

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

24 However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section

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

24 However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section

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

24 However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section

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

24 However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section

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

24 However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section

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

24] provisions of section 200A. Therefore, the assessee is liable to pay the due fee u/s 234E and order passed u/s 200A is correct and as per law, Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on merits. There arises no occasion for condonation of delay