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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 67clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai409Mumbai335Delhi329Kolkata236Pune230Hyderabad192Bangalore174Ahmedabad150Karnataka130Jaipur120Chandigarh76Raipur65Indore45Amritsar41Surat39Calcutta39Cochin39Lucknow31Rajkot29Visakhapatnam26Nagpur23Cuttack20Guwahati19Kerala17Patna13Telangana11Dehradun10Varanasi9SC9Jodhpur9Jabalpur6Agra5Allahabad5Panaji3Ranchi3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 6810Section 253(3)10Section 143(3)8Condonation of Delay8Addition to Income8Section 1447Disallowance7Section 1486Section 143(2)

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

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

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

5
Section 1475
Cash Deposit5
Section 2633
ITA 7/JODH/2021[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jodhpur
01 Nov 2021
AY 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 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 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

SARVODAYA MINING SERVICES,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 438/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addld. CIT – DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 44A

section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed with delay for 15 days. The petition for condonation of delay was filed. The ordinate delay for 15days is condoned. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR argued and submitted a paper book containing pages

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

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

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

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

condonation of delay we admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y 2017-18 electronically on 16.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Notice

AAMEEN BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the ground no

ITA 571/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 124(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

section 292B is erroneous and contrary to the provision of Law. Assessment framed u/s143(3) in consequence to the notice issued u/s143(2) inviolations of statutory provisions may kindly be held void. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case,Ld.CIT(A) erredin sustainingthe addition of Rs. 9,67,591/- out of addition made