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 7Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi23Mumbai20Chennai12Hyderabad10Kolkata10Ahmedabad8Jaipur6Raipur5Rajasthan4Telangana3Amritsar3Calcutta3Indore2Rajkot2Bangalore2Pune1Cuttack1Cochin1SC1Guwahati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 143(3)3Section 1482

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

7A) of the Act. If the assessing officer sought information and found the reply of the assessee satisfactory, then the PCIT u/s 263 cannot substitute his own view overriding the assessing officer’s satisfaction. Besides, this is first year incorporation, hence there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act. Based on these facts, learned Counsel for the assessee

SHRI DILIPSINH HARUBHA PARMAR,LIMLIPA, MULI, DIST. SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 285/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 69

Section 148, the assessee replied vide letter dated 01.05.2018 and submitted that the assessee is a farmer and deposited cash from agricultural crops sale income. The assessee submitted Form No. 8A, Form 7A and Form 12 of agricultural land ledger. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to explain the nature source of income and therefore made addition