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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai425Kolkata333Delhi284Mumbai268Pune199Bangalore164Hyderabad135Karnataka114Jaipur95Chandigarh76Indore66Calcutta65Ahmedabad65Cuttack54Rajkot50Panaji41Surat37Visakhapatnam36Raipur34Cochin28Nagpur27Patna21Amritsar21Lucknow19Dehradun9SC8Varanasi7Agra6Jabalpur6Jodhpur5Telangana4Guwahati3Allahabad2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 80G4Section 271(1)(c)4Condonation of Delay4Section 2633Addition to Income3Limitation/Time-bar3Section 143(2)2Section 147

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 20 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 and therefore admitting the appeal we are proceeded to deal with the merits

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18
2
Natural Justice2

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the ACIT CIR, Bhilwara. 2 Shree Navkar Realinfra Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT, Udaipur has grossly erred in initiating revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Income

MOHAMMAD YASEER,BARDEZ GOA vs. ITO, WARD-2, MAKRANA

In the result, all the appeals bearing ITAs No

ITA 345/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250

Section under which date order is passed & dt of order 345/Jodh/2024 2015-16 28/03/2023 ITO, Ward 2, U/s 143(3), DO Makrana. 29/12/2017 501/Jodh/2024 2015-16 30/11/2023 Assessment Unit, U/s 147 r.w.s. 144 Income-tax r.w.s.144B, DO Department 14/03/2023 503/Jodh/2024 2015-16 19/04/2024 NFAC U/s 144 r.w.s 263 r.w.s. 144B, DO 13/09/2021 514/Jodh/2024 2015-16 15/12/2023 ITO, Ward 2, Churu

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
Section 133A

condone the delay and proceed to\ndecide the appeal on merit.\n4. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal. In\nGround No.1, grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.25 lacs made by the\nAO on account of disallowance of excess stock claimed by the\nassessee.\n5. The brief facts

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 278/JODH/2023[2022-23 to 2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

Section 12Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

section 80G of the IT Act is illegal and against the law. 5. That the CIT (E) should have condoned the delay looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case. 6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ignore the communication which was incumbent upon the CIT(E) to examine the explanation and arrive at conclusion as to whether