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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai58Karnataka21Ahmedabad11Delhi11Bangalore8Pune7Kolkata7Lucknow6Mumbai6Jaipur5Surat5Visakhapatnam3Guwahati3Raipur3SC2Cochin1Indore1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 144B13Section 271A7Section 1546Section 1195Section 69A4Section 270A3Section 2713Section 119(2)(b)2Condonation of Delay

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 10
2
Section 115V
Section 119
Section 119(2)(b)
Section 12A
Section 132
Section 143
Section 144B
Section 147
Section 153A

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

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 317/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These four appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 against impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071962641(1), dated 12.03.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073191753(1), dated 11.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024- 25/1073114093(1) and dated 12.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073192339(1), respectively of Commissioner

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 120/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These four appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 against impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071962641(1), dated 12.03.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073191753(1), dated 11.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024- 25/1073114093(1) and dated 12.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073192339(1), respectively of Commissioner

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 316/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These four appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 against impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071962641(1), dated 12.03.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073191753(1), dated 11.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024- 25/1073114093(1) and dated 12.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073192339(1), respectively of Commissioner

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 315/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These four appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 against impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071962641(1), dated 12.03.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073191753(1), dated 11.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024- 25/1073114093(1) and dated 12.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073192339(1), respectively of Commissioner

UMA SHANKAR AWASTHI,UNNAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(4), UNNAO

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

ITA 773/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Uma Shanker Awasthi V. Income Tax Officer 2(4) House No.76 Unnao Hiran Nagar, Unnao Tan/Pan:Afypa1750N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 12.06.2024, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Income Tax Department received information through ITBA-Cash Transaction-2016 that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.14