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.

45 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna471Mumbai420Delhi405Chennai333Bangalore243Pune239Kolkata156Ahmedabad104Hyderabad95Chandigarh89Jaipur83Lucknow45Surat45Nagpur40Indore40Cochin33Visakhapatnam33Raipur27Rajkot20Agra18Calcutta15Amritsar12Cuttack12Jodhpur10Guwahati9SC9Jabalpur9Panaji6Ranchi5Allahabad2Dehradun2Telangana2Varanasi2Karnataka2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 15459Section 1158Section 12A41Section 143(1)41Addition to Income29Section 143(3)22Condonation of Delay22Section 25017Section 119(2)(b)

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

17
Rectification u/s 15417
Exemption16
Section 139(1)13

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

WSG VENTURE PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. DCT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A

condonation of delay moved u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act is not lawful, bad in law, be quashed. 03. THAT the Pr. CIT as well as CPC has erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily rejecting the petition of the assessee company to rectify the return of income, which should ought to have done. A.Y. 2022-23 WSG Venture

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

condone delay in filing of Form 67 does not vest with the AO or CPC or any other subordinate authority except to the extent as provided for by the CBDT in exercise of its powers conferred under the Act. Clearly the case of the appellant does not fall within such relaxation provided for by CEDT. For the detailed reasons

SHRI RAM GOPAL DOHARE,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2007-08 Ram Gopal Dohare, Commissioner Of Income (Appeal), 63-Akashpuram Pilibhit Bypass, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Jagatpur, Kamla Nehru Marg, Bareilly-243006 Bareilly - 243001 Pan – Adord 4122H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 154(7)

section 154(7) of the I.T. Act 1961. Principal of natural justice say that appellant condonation of delay should be condoned

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

condoning the delay, had ITA Nos.651, 652 & 653/LKW/2024 Page 13 of 15 disallowed the claim made by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that in assessment year 2017-18, the intimation of the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act was rectified, vide order dated 05.02.2025 passed under section 154

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

condoning the delay, had ITA Nos.651, 652 & 653/LKW/2024 Page 13 of 15 disallowed the claim made by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that in assessment year 2017-18, the intimation of the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act was rectified, vide order dated 05.02.2025 passed under section 154

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

condoning the delay, had ITA Nos.651, 652 & 653/LKW/2024 Page 13 of 15 disallowed the claim made by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that in assessment year 2017-18, the intimation of the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act was rectified, vide order dated 05.02.2025 passed under section 154

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ESection 250Section 37

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ESection 250Section 37

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND WELFARE AWARENESS,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 516/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrisudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(3)

Section 143(1) of the Act whereby adjustment was made, making addition to the returned income. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2024 whereby the assessee’s appeal was not admitted on limitation ground. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case

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

section 154 of the Act, there being no deliberate intention, the delay being beyond the control of the assessee, the CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning

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

section 154 of the Act, there being no deliberate intention, the delay being beyond the control of the assessee, the CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

154 r.w.s. 143(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 and under section 143(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the CIT(A) has not given any direction for giving the credit of allowance of Gratuity addition of Rs.49,17,636.00 in the intimation, which was finally allowed

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

154 r.w.s. 143(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 and under section 143(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the CIT(A) has not given any direction for giving the credit of allowance of Gratuity addition of Rs.49,17,636.00 in the intimation, which was finally allowed

OM PRAKASH SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(4) , LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 777/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatom Prakash Singh V. The Income Tax Officer- J-166 Opp City School 1(4), Lucknow Raibareily Road, South City Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aidps7478M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Page 2 of 3 Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 25.10.2025 along

ARIF MUNIR,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-(2)(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arif Munir V. The Ito(2)(1)(2) 13/397, Vip Road Kanpur Near Green Park Civil Lines, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afjpm1226J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 03 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.02.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 30.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,92,280/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, In Response To The Queries Raised By The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Submission On Behalf Of The Assessee Was That Rs.2,44,000/- Was Deposited In His Bank Account Maintained With Hdfc Bank Limited Out Of His & His Wife’S Past Savings. Not Being Satisfied With The Reply Furnished

For Appellant: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271ASection 69ASection 80C

section 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. It was prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that the delay may please be condoned

BHALCHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 191/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 154

section 139 for furnishing the return of income for relevant year. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the order passed by learned CIT (Exemptions) u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, the assessee preferred rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was also rejected by learned CIT (Exemptions) and which is the subject matter