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.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 145Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh71Chennai19Mumbai19Bangalore12Delhi11Ahmedabad7Jaipur4Raipur3Pune2Kolkata2Rajkot1Panaji1Cochin1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar2

M/S SHIRODE AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 501/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2021AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.501/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 72

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 M/s. Shirode Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 3. Tersely stated, the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee is engaged in the business of sales and service of two wheelers and tractors. A return was filed declaring total income of Rs.30,48,700/-. During the course

RAJENDRA MADHAVRAO BARHATE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 221/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalश्री आर. एस.स्याल, उपाध्यक्ष के समक्ष आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.221/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Madhavrao Barhate Vs. Ito, Ward-2, At Post Ghodegaon, Ahmednagar Tal. Newasa, Ahmednagar – 414601 Pan : Amopb3443J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145A

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 2 Rajendra M. Barhate 3. The only issue raised in this appeal is against confirmation of addition of Rs.18,22,754/- made by the AO on account of estimated amount of profit from business operations. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee carried