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.

71 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 139(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai732Mumbai498Delhi482Kolkata414Bangalore338Pune299Jaipur270Ahmedabad247Hyderabad243Karnataka156Chandigarh149Cochin128Visakhapatnam108Surat101Indore95Nagpur80Amritsar74Lucknow71Raipur42Calcutta40Cuttack37Guwahati31Rajkot30Patna27Jodhpur26Allahabad20Agra16Panaji15Jabalpur12Varanasi11SC10Dehradun9Telangana6Ranchi2Orissa2Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income45Section 143(1)43Section 1141Condonation of Delay37Section 139(1)35Section 12A34Natural Justice28Section 14824Section 44A

ARPIT KUMAR TOMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 250/LKW/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

4) of section 139: Provided that where the return has been furnished under sub-section (8A) of section 139, the statement in Form No. 67 referred to in clause (i) of sub- rule (8) and the certificate or the statement referred to in clause (ii) of sub- rule (8) to the extent it relates to the income included

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

23
Section 15422
Limitation/Time-bar22
Exemption21

SHRAMIK VIKAS SAHKARI SHRRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234FSection 80ASection 80P

139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). While filing the return of income, the assessee duly claimed deduction under section 80P(ii)(vi) of the Act. However, the Centralized Processing Center (hereinafter ITA No.356/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 11 called “the CPC”) determined the total income of the assessee- society at Rs.21,61,640/- without allowing

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 80ASection 80P

condoning the delay of 551 days in filing of appeal owing to Covid-19 pandemic and without considering that the delay period is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ petition No. 3/2020 and also by the CBDT Circular 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021. I.T.A. No.348/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2019-20 2 WITHOUT PREHUDICE TO ABOVE

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 699/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

139(1) of the Act. According to him the AO ought to have condoned such delay and allowed the benefit of Section 80IB of the Act to the assessee. Page 3 of 13 9. That the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1) is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 3. The solitary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. VYAVSAYIK PARIKSHA PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 571/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Vyavsayik Pariksha Parishad Lucknow 2, Aliganj Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatv9447J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 17 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 09 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 121Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(4)

Section 139(4) of the I.T Act as applicable for assessment year 2016-17; that in view of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, as stated in Para 4(i) thereof, the delay in filing of Form no. 10B has been condoned

M/S URBAN COOP BANK LTD,BAREILLY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BAREILLY NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 133/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 43B

139(1) of Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in considering the amendment by Finance Act 2021 in provisions of section 36 read with section 43B of Income-tax Act as retrospective despite of it being prospective in light of Memorandum of Finance Bill

J.P. MOTOR RPIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 118/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.33,87,965/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, who disallowed the PF and ESI, amounting to Rs.16,54,319/-, observing that the same was deposited after the due date but before

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 36/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Page 3 of 17 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 30.9.2019, declaring an income of Rs.20,19,01,760/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.20,21,20,480/-, disallowing

BABIAN INN,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 85/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow04 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

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

delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.1,67,054/- representing employees’ share towards contribution to EPF/ESIC which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned I.T.A

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 412/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

section 139(4) of the Act. However, the assessee had filed an application for delay condonation and filed the audit

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO NEW

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

ITA 139/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 154

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO-NEW

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

ITA 138/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 154

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCH,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 250

delay of 15 days is condoned to permit the assessee to withdraw the appeal. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 on 7.11.2022 declaring its total income at Rs. Nil. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the total income

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

4. BECAUSE the ld "Addl/JCIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC in making dis-allowance by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the "Act", whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such an adjustment was not permissible under the relevant provisions of law and CBDT

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

4. BECAUSE the ld "Addl/JCIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC in making dis-allowance by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the "Act", whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such an adjustment was not permissible under the relevant provisions of law and CBDT

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

4. BECAUSE the ld "Addl/JCIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC in making dis-allowance by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the "Act", whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such an adjustment was not permissible under the relevant provisions of law and CBDT

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 301/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 303/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 302/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 304/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears