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.

13 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 78clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai428Chennai416Kolkata354Delhi338Bangalore171Ahmedabad165Karnataka148Pune132Hyderabad104Chandigarh102Jaipur95Visakhapatnam50Lucknow45Amritsar45Surat39Calcutta36Indore33Nagpur28Cuttack26Cochin25Guwahati24Raipur23Patna19Panaji18Rajkot13SC10Jodhpur7Allahabad6Telangana6Dehradun5Jabalpur3Orissa2Rajasthan2Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Varanasi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14819Section 14713Section 206C(7)12Section 206C(6)12Section 2508Addition to Income8Section 142(1)6Section 271D5Section 143(3)

SURENDRABA RAGHUVIRSINH CHUDASAMA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

ITA 938/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, has explained the reasons for delay stating that in the assessee`s case, the appellate order under section 250 of the Income tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13 has been passed on 19th September 2023. In view of the same, the present appeal ought to have been filed

5
Penalty4
TDS4
Limitation/Time-bar3

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit. 8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and had filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13, on 25.03.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,78,070/-. During the year, the assessee has earned

ASHISHKUMAR BHAGVANJIBHAI KANSAGRA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIR - 2(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 409/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Alpa V. Makadiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

78 (SC); CIT v. Kamdhenu Vyapar Co. Ltd. (2014) 52 taxmann.com 283 (Del)] 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had availed temporary business loans from friends and relatives through banking channels, duly confirmed and repaid, and the transactions were genuine and duly explained. [CIT v. Lovely Exports

MITESHKUMAR DAYALJIBHAI PABARI,BHATIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , RAJKOT

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

ITA 420/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 420 /Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, International C/O Dayaljibhai Pabari, Shreeji Catlery Vs. Taxation Rajkot, Stores, Main Bajar, Bhatiya, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Room No. 312, Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Dwarka-361315(Gujarat) Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bctpp7290M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 274Section 69

78,69,694/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE and passing order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) ITA 420/RJT/2025 MITESHKUMAR PABARI of the Act and raised huge demand of Rs. 1,25,24,430/-. Hon. DRP not considered the objection, not verified the submission, not given proper opportunity to being heard and rejected the objection application on the ground

LOVE SHOPPERS LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 13,25,000/-”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal. I.T.A No. 285/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 M/s. Love Shoppers vs. DCIT 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that the assessee company had received a loan of " 13,25,000/- in cash from

ISHWARBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 679/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri PM Jagaseth C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 69ASection 69C

delay is condoned. 3. The Assessing Officer has made addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,17,870/- being expenditure incurred on the purchase from IshwarbhaiShantilal Patel Vs. ITO Asst.Year:2018-19 - 2– M/s. Mirza Traders amounting to 19,78,032/- and cash was received from said party. From the perusal

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

ITA 487/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

78,26,790/- and in A/c. No. 339402000000019 of Rs. 13,62,500/-. 7. Since, the assessee is a proprietor of petrol pump which was allowed to accept old SBN notes during demonetization period, so the total amount of 1.63% is being allowed for the business purpose (91,89,290*1.63%=1,50,000/-), and the amount

HETALKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI JOSHI,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 861 & 863/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi. Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), Vijay Villa, C/O, Kankrai L Mehta, Rajkot. 5-Mahavir Society Nirmala Road, Rajkot-360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agspj0840P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shekhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condoning the delay in filling the appeal. The appeal may kindly be directed to be decided on merits. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in not deciding grounds of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, proceedings-initiated

HETALKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI JOSHI,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 863/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 861 & 863/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi. Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), Vijay Villa, C/O, Kankrai L Mehta, Rajkot. 5-Mahavir Society Nirmala Road, Rajkot-360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agspj0840P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shekhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

condoning the delay in filling the appeal. The appeal may kindly be directed to be decided on merits. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in not deciding grounds of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, proceedings-initiated

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 52/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides. In any case those high court decisions would

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 51/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides. In any case those high court decisions would

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 53/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides. In any case those high court decisions would

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 54/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides. In any case those high court decisions would