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.

48 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai477Mumbai427Delhi414Kolkata262Bangalore230Ahmedabad176Karnataka141Jaipur121Hyderabad115Pune113Chandigarh110Nagpur78Surat54Lucknow48Indore41Calcutta38Panaji38Cochin32Visakhapatnam23Rajkot22Raipur18SC16Cuttack16Patna14Amritsar13Guwahati10Telangana9Jodhpur6Dehradun6Agra6Allahabad5Varanasi5Jabalpur4Rajasthan4Orissa3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14A40Section 1137Addition to Income35Section 12A23Section 2(15)20Section 143(3)15Condonation of Delay15Deduction13Limitation/Time-bar

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 90/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

57,110/ has been made and further that as the department has withheld huge refunds the appellant was not in a position to pay the same and moreover as the amount is lying with the department the same should be treated as payment already made to the department and thus no liability shall remain and no interest

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

57,110/ has been made and further that as the department has withheld huge refunds the appellant was not in a position to pay the same and moreover as the amount is lying with the department the same should be treated as payment already made to the department and thus no liability shall remain and no interest

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

13
Section 144B12
Section 25011
Disallowance11

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 88/LKW/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

57,110/ has been made and further that as the department has withheld huge refunds the appellant was not in a position to pay the same and moreover as the amount is lying with the department the same should be treated as payment already made to the department and thus no liability shall remain and no interest

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI AJAY KUMAR JAIN, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 185/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2013-14

Section 57

delay was condoned and Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to proceed with his arguments. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue raised in this appeal is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has disallowed an amount of interest of Rs.10,89,921/- which the assessee had claimed to have incurred against

AJAY KUMAR JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 268/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2013-14

Section 57

delay was condoned and Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to proceed with his arguments. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue raised in this appeal is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has disallowed an amount of interest of Rs.10,89,921/- which the assessee had claimed to have incurred against

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

ITA 267/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

condone the delay following the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC). 7. Now coming to the ground of appeal, the facts giving rise to the appeal is that the assessee filed his return of income through electronic mode

PURNAGIRI RICE MILLS,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) on 24.12.2009, assessing total income at Rs.46,460/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) re- opened the assessment after obtaining

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

57, Ram Tirath Marg, Narhi Hazratganj-226001. PAN:AACCV3116F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) O R 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

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

57, Ram Tirath Marg, Narhi Hazratganj-226001. PAN:AACCV3116F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) O R 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

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

57, Ram Tirath Marg, Narhi Hazratganj-226001. PAN:AACCV3116F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) O R 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

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

57, Ram Tirath Marg, Narhi Hazratganj-226001. PAN:AACCV3116F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) O R 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

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 486/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None 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 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

57 of the Act was not allowable, as the assessee was a co-operative society and was eligible for deduction under chapter VI-A read with section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Act only. The AO, therefore, treated the amount of Rs.20,33,851/- as the income of the assessee and added the same to the total income

HAJARIA SOFT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 74/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.74/Lkw/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hajaria Soft Services Pvt Ltd Income Tax Officer-3(2) V. A-1462, Sec-1, Lda Colony, Lucknow-New Kanpur Road Ashiyana, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226012. 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aadch6101R अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 05/08/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 69Section 80J

57, Ram Tirath Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. PAN:AADCH6101R अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant by: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT(DR) आदेश / O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/LKW/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S DEV BHOOMI PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

delay was condoned and Learned D. R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 3. Learned D. R. submitted that in this case the assessee had issued share capital to four companies at a premium and had forfeited the share application money and therefore, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain and on examination of the explanation, the Assessing

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 415/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice

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

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of Revenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue, first issue in dispute is assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.2

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

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of Revenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue, first issue in dispute is assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.2