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.

86 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai332Indore240Chennai222Delhi220Kolkata171Karnataka139Ahmedabad135Jaipur129Bangalore116Surat110Chandigarh95Lucknow86Pune64Raipur47Panaji43Nagpur42Hyderabad39Rajkot34Patna28Cochin26Allahabad25Cuttack24Varanasi19Guwahati14Visakhapatnam14Ranchi9Jodhpur8Amritsar8Agra8Jabalpur5SC4Telangana2Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1Rajasthan1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Addition to Income52Condonation of Delay46Section 253(3)43Section 14A40Section 143(2)31Section 143(3)29Section 143(1)29Section 1128Section 147

FUTURE MONEY SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, A-28,NEAR BANKEY BIHARI TAMPEL RAJENDRA NAGER, BAREILLY-243001,,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2),BAREILLY-NEW., BAREILLY-NEW

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

ITA 194/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriafuture Money Sales & Income Tax Officer-1(2) V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd Rampur Garden, Bareilly- A-28, Near Bankey Bihari New-243001. Tample, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aabcf4395H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(3)

253 ITR 798 (SC) Head Note: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Extension of prescribed Period in certain cases - Whether in exercising discretion under section 5, Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction keeping in mind that principal of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance - Held, yes - Whether a distinction must

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

26
Section 69A25
Limitation/Time-bar24
Natural Justice18

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

ITA 356/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

253(3) of the Act. In the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, it is stated that there is no limitation in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition in the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

ITA 623/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

253(3) of the Act. In the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, it is stated that there is no limitation in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition in the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

ITA 17/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

253(3) of the Act. In the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, it is stated that there is no limitation in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition in the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

253(3) of the Act. In the petition filed by\nthe assessee for condonation of delay, it is stated that there is no limitation\nin view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking\ncognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition in the\nsituation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

253(3) of the Act. In the petition filed by\nthe assessee for condonation of delay, it is stated that there is no limitation\nin view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking\ncognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition in the\nsituation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

condonation of delay in filing of these appeals as per section 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has requested

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

condonation of delay in filing of these appeals as per section 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has requested

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

condonation of delay in filing of these appeals as per section 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has requested

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-2, KANPUR

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

ITA 390/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

253(3) of the I. T. Act. Applications dated 06/12/2023 were filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeals, the assessee has submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeals were really beyond control

STETE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-, KANPUR

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

ITA 391/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

253(3) of the I. T. Act. Applications dated 06/12/2023 were filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeals, the assessee has submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeals were really beyond control

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

253(3) of the Act. In the petition filed by\nthe assessee for condonation of delay, it is stated that there is no limitation\nin view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking\ncognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition in the\nsituation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account

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

section 253(3) of the I. T. Act, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. (C) In this case the return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and an intimation dated 29/10/2020 was issued to the assessee by Revenue denying the deduction claimed

SYED MOHAMMAD MAYAR HUSAIN RIZVI,PANCHKULA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

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

ITA 89/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)

253(3) of the I. T. Act. An affidavit dated 10/03/2025 was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeal, the assessee has submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeal were really beyond her control

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 68/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT (DR)
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

condonation of delay were not maintainable. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application, thereby causing grievance to the assessee who is in appeal before us on this issue. 4. When the case was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Sh. Rakesh Kumar informed that the ld. CIT(A) had passed the orders in violation of the principles

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION(, LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 66/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT (DR)
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

condonation of delay were not maintainable. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application, thereby causing grievance to the assessee who is in appeal before us on this issue. 4. When the case was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Sh. Rakesh Kumar informed that the ld. CIT(A) had passed the orders in violation of the principles

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 67/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT (DR)
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

condonation of delay were not maintainable. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application, thereby causing grievance to the assessee who is in appeal before us on this issue. 4. When the case was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Sh. Rakesh Kumar informed that the ld. CIT(A) had passed the orders in violation of the principles

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 360/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 11(1)(a)Section 143Section 143(2)

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n8\nBECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n9.\nBECAUSE the order appealed against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 288/LKW/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 143Section 143(2)

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n\n8 BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n\n9. BECAUSE the order

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing