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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai169Karnataka123Pune119Kolkata77Mumbai76Delhi68Raipur62Chandigarh59Ahmedabad57Nagpur54Bangalore38Calcutta35Surat28Jaipur27Hyderabad23Rajkot12Guwahati7Indore7Varanasi5Agra5Patna5Dehradun3Cuttack3Amritsar3Visakhapatnam2Lucknow2Panaji2SC2Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1Cochin1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1442Addition to Income2

SHUBHANSHU AGARWAL,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

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

ITA 458/LKW/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Shubhanshu Agarwal V. The Ito-1 C/O Shree Shyam Fertilizers Bahraich Shiv Nagar Bahraich (U/P) Tan/Pan:Bbhpa5931M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

206/-) debited in the profit and loss account, which came to Rs.67,48,568/-, should not be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Since there was no reply from the side of the assessee to the show cause notice issued by the AO, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.67,48,568/- and added the same

RAKESH KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), BARABANKI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

206/-, totaling to Rs.49,28,606/- through banking channels during the year under consideration in addition to cash deposits in SBNs during the demonetization period. Since the assessee failed to furnish the books of account or any other document to verify the nature of business or actual profit earned ITA No.438/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 11 by the assessee, he estimated