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 41(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai661Delhi651Mumbai594Kolkata346Bangalore219Ahmedabad186Hyderabad168Karnataka145Jaipur125Pune123Chandigarh119Amritsar84Raipur84Surat84Nagpur80Lucknow60Indore59Cuttack54Calcutta43Panaji31Rajkot29SC26Cochin24Visakhapatnam21Guwahati14Telangana13Patna13Varanasi12Allahabad10Dehradun9Agra7Jabalpur6Jodhpur5Orissa5Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1548Section 234E6Section 2005Section 1443Section 36(1)(va)3Section 200A3Addition to Income3Section 249(3)2Section 43B

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

1), for clauses (c) to (e), the following clauses shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of June, 2015, namely:— “(c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount

2
Condonation of Delay2

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

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

41,040/- in respect of employees contribution to ESI & PF. (5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that amendment in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable in the case of assessee. (6) That on the facts

MUNNA RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 24/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

delay in the instant case clearly demonstrated that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. Accordingly, 4 he held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well- settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation

JAGDISH BENIWAL,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER, BARMER

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

ITA 867/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Occurred Due To The Assessee Being Unaware Of The Status Of The Appeal Before The Cit(A) & The Lapse On The Part Of His Erstwhile Authorised Representative, Who Failed To Communicate The Outcome Or Advise Timely Further Action. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Had Re-Engaged Counsel Only After Becoming Aware Of The Adverse Order & Immediate Steps Were Taken Thereafter To Prefer The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144

41, Office No. 30 Ward-1 Ground Floor, Sector 9, Barmer Gandhidham-370201 PAN NO: BCFPB8233C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Chetan Aggarwal, C.A Revenue by : Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.02.2024 passed