Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 246A(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi160 Chennai66 Pune50 Mumbai43 Bangalore35 Indore32 Panaji19 Kolkata12 Patna9 Nagpur9 Chandigarh9 Visakhapatnam7 Jaipur7 Ahmedabad5 Raipur5 Hyderabad4 Lucknow3 Jodhpur2 Cuttack2 Agra1 Jabalpur1 Allahabad1 Surat1

Key Topics

Section 249(2)9 Section 143(1)6 Section 143(1)(a)6 Section 2505 Section 1485 Addition to Income5 Section 1474 Limitation/Time-bar4 Section 271(1)(c)

MALANI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 316/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen GoyalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)

3

Section 36(1)(va)3

Section 68

condonation of delay, which may please be considered and allowed. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,20,00, 000/- to the total income of the appellant on the issue of share application money from Neuraty Agents Private Limited, which is a group company of the appellant. The assessing officer did not mentioned the details of any information

SANDEEP KAUR GILL, RAIPUR ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for 873 days deserves to be condoned and the matter should be adjudicated afresh based on merits of the case and facts available on record. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 9,08,810/-. Thereafter

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 358/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

C) No. 3 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022 on account of COVID- 19. Regarding the delay of 991 days remaining i.e. from 01.06.2022 to 15.02.2025, it was the submission that the matters of the assessee were handled by his previous counsel, who failed to comply the taxation matters in appeal in timely manner. It was the submission that

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 359/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

C) No. 3 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022 on account of COVID- 19. Regarding the delay of 991 days remaining i.e. from 01.06.2022 to 15.02.2025, it was the submission that the matters of the assessee were handled by his previous counsel, who failed to comply the taxation matters in appeal in timely manner. It was the submission that

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 360/RPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

C) No. 3 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022 on account of COVID- 19. Regarding the delay of 991 days remaining i.e. from 01.06.2022 to 15.02.2025, it was the submission that the matters of the assessee were handled by his previous counsel, who failed to comply the taxation matters in appeal in timely manner. It was the submission that