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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi337Calcutta206Mumbai116Karnataka64Amritsar36Kolkata35Chennai34Telangana25Hyderabad23Chandigarh13Lucknow12Andhra Pradesh10Bangalore9SC9Ahmedabad7Indore7Nagpur6Agra6Cochin6Jaipur5Surat5Rajasthan4Kerala4Orissa2Raipur2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Dehradun2Jodhpur1Gauhati1Rajkot1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Pune1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 10(38)8Section 69A8Section 143(3)6Section 2(15)5Section 260A5Section 1274Addition to Income4Condonation of Delay4Section 11

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. I.T.A. No.153/Lkw/2020 Assessment. Year:2014-15 4 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has declared long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

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

ITA 205/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed
3
Section 2633
Long Term Capital Gains3
Bogus/Accommodation Entry3
ITAT Lucknow
17 Jan 2022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

condone the delay in filing the appeals and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has raised long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which were manipulated with the help of certain

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 268A

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed a return on 30.09.2015 showing total income of Rs. 5,60,840/-. It was observed that he had claimed a deduction under section 10(38) for long term capital gain to the tune of Rs.59

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 574/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

260A of the Income-Tax Act has been preferred raising o question whether U.P. Forest is liable I.T.A. No.574/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 16 for grant of certificate under Section 12-A of the Income-Tax Act 1961 ? It is has been admitted at bar that Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the same issue in a case reported

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENIFIT CORP. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee/respondent are dismissed

ITA 683/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jun 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.683/लखनऊ /2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-I, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko Co No. 10/Lkw/2004 (A.Y. 1996-97) In Ita No. 683/Lkw/2000 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd.) 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-I, Lucknow आअसं.684/ लखनऊ/2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Earlier Sahara India Mutal Benefit Ltd.) 2A Sahara India Sadan, Sakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcs-6118-F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 201(1)Section 260ASection 271C

260A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. Under Section 127, the authorities have

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENIFIT CORP. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee/respondent are dismissed

ITA 684/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jun 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.683/लखनऊ /2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-I, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko Co No. 10/Lkw/2004 (A.Y. 1996-97) In Ita No. 683/Lkw/2000 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd.) 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-I, Lucknow आअसं.684/ लखनऊ/2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Earlier Sahara India Mutal Benefit Ltd.) 2A Sahara India Sadan, Sakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcs-6118-F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 201(1)Section 260ASection 271C

260A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. Under Section 127, the authorities have

DCIT, CC-1, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA , LUCKNOW

In the result, all 11 appeals of the Revenue and 9 cross objections of the respondent/assessee are dismissed

ITA 567/LKW/2002[1997-198]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2025AY 1997-198

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.3246/ िद"ी /2008(िन.व. 1995-96) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko Co No. 249/Del/2009 (A.Y.1995-96) In Ita No.3246/Del/2008 Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R.No. 334, Ara Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.683/ लखनऊ/1999 (िन.व. 1995-96) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 303-S/Cc-I/Lko

260A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. Under Section 127, the authorities have

ACIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA, LUCKNOW

In the result, all 11 appeals of the Revenue and 9 cross objections of the respondent/assessee are dismissed

ITA 683/LKW/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.3246/ िद"ी /2008(िन.व. 1995-96) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko Co No. 249/Del/2009 (A.Y.1995-96) In Ita No.3246/Del/2008 Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R.No. 334, Ara Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.683/ लखनऊ/1999 (िन.व. 1995-96) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 303-S/Cc-I/Lko

260A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. Under Section 127, the authorities have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA, LUCKNOW

In the result, all 11 appeals of the Revenue and 9 cross objections of the respondent/assessee are dismissed

ITA 104/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.3246/ िद"ी /2008(िन.व. 1995-96) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko Co No. 249/Del/2009 (A.Y.1995-96) In Ita No.3246/Del/2008 Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R.No. 334, Ara Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.683/ लखनऊ/1999 (िन.व. 1995-96) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 303-S/Cc-I/Lko

260A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. Under Section 127, the authorities have

DCIT, CC-1, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA, LUCKNOW

In the result, all 11 appeals of the Revenue and 9 cross objections of the respondent/assessee are dismissed

ITA 669/LKW/2002[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.3246/ िद"ी /2008(िन.व. 1995-96) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko Co No. 249/Del/2009 (A.Y.1995-96) In Ita No.3246/Del/2008 Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R.No. 334, Ara Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.683/ लखनऊ/1999 (िन.व. 1995-96) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 303-S/Cc-I/Lko

260A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. Under Section 127, the authorities have

SAHARA INDIA, ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, CC-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, all 11 appeals of the Revenue and 9 cross objections of the respondent/assessee are dismissed

ITA 742/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.3246/ िद"ी /2008(िन.व. 1995-96) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko Co No. 249/Del/2009 (A.Y.1995-96) In Ita No.3246/Del/2008 Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 19-219-Ft-3005-Cc-I, Lko & 303-S/C-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R.No. 334, Ara Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.683/ लखनऊ/1999 (िन.व. 1995-96) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 303-S/Cc-I/Lko

260A read with Section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. Under Section 127, the authorities have

NAVUDAI SHIKSHAN AND JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 96/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

delay which requires condonation and therefore, the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) on 15.12.2018 in the status of an AOP in which exemption under section 11 was not allowed. The society had applied for grant of registration under section