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.

139 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai3,954Mumbai3,733Delhi3,074Kolkata2,010Pune1,755Bangalore1,658Ahmedabad1,330Hyderabad994Jaipur845Patna729Chandigarh530Indore518Surat490Raipur393Nagpur381Lucknow358Cochin329Visakhapatnam325Karnataka305Rajkot302Amritsar250Cuttack200Agra140Panaji139Calcutta98Dehradun97Jodhpur76Guwahati71SC62Ranchi59Jabalpur58Allahabad51Telangana48Varanasi20Andhra Pradesh16Orissa10Rajasthan10Kerala7Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Gauhati1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Condonation of Delay82Section 200A50Section 24941Section 14440Section 253(1)32Section 246A32Section 25028Deduction

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 279/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

6 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 7. In terms

Showing 1–20 of 139 · Page 1 of 7

26
Addition to Income26
Section 80P(2)(a)25
Limitation/Time-bar21

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 278/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

6 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 7. In terms

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 281/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

6 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 7. In terms

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 280/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

6 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 7. In terms

SHRI LEO DINIZ,BORDA, FATORDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, PANAJI

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 150/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(1)

6 of 34 Leo Deniz Vs DCIT ITA No. 150/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 true sense, not the number but text of explanation is determinative in the matter of condonation of delay and it is worthy to note the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para 15 summarized the same in ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

6. To lift the belief up for condonation, the appellant submitted the affidavit of executive director who confirmed the reasoning deposed by the Dy. General Manager-taxation. The Dy. GM primarily deposed that said delay is solitarily attributable to appellant’s unawareness of impugned orders. The circumstantial reasons of affidavit are such that; (a) amalgamation of CB with UBI & consequent

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

6. To lift the belief up for condonation, the appellant submitted the affidavit of executive director who confirmed the reasoning deposed by the Dy. General Manager-taxation. The Dy. GM primarily deposed that said delay is solitarily attributable to appellant’s unawareness of impugned orders. The circumstantial reasons of affidavit are such that; (a) amalgamation of CB with UBI & consequent

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

6. To lift the belief up for condonation, the appellant submitted the affidavit of executive director who confirmed the reasoning deposed by the Dy. General Manager-taxation. The Dy. GM primarily deposed that said delay is solitarily attributable to appellant’s unawareness of impugned orders. The circumstantial reasons of affidavit are such that; (a) amalgamation of CB with UBI & consequent

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 6/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

condonation of delay, and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 6. We note that, the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 was instituted by the appellant

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 5/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

condonation of delay, and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 6. We note that, the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 was instituted by the appellant

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 7/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

condonation of delay, and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 6. We note that, the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 was instituted by the appellant

DINKAR KASHIMATH PATIL,MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-W-1(3),PANAJI, PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 10/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.10/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Vs National Faceless H.No.322/3,Ganpatiwada, Assessment Centre, . Near Graceland,Khandola, Delhi. Marcela, Ponda-403107, . Goa. Pan/Gir No. Ajjpp9976E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 194I

section 194IA of the Act The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. And further notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to furnish the details. Since, no explanations/details were filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions

JAGANUR VIVIDODDHESH PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 454/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.454/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2017-18 ) Jaganur Vividoddhesh I.T.O-Ward-1, Vs Prathamik Grameen Krushi Nemchand Building, . Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, 747,Ashoknagar, Jaganur, Tq.Chikkodi, Nipani-591237, Dist Belgaum-591305, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No: Aabap7922L

Section 80A

section 80AC of the Act are not complied by the assessee and the A.O has denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.48,49,739/- and passed the order u/sec144 of the Act dated 16.10.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 264/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 266/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 259/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 260/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 267/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 265/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 261/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation