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 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata32Mumbai29Chennai24Delhi23Hyderabad5Bangalore4Patna4Lucknow3Visakhapatnam2Indore2Jaipur2Rajkot2Surat2Varanasi2Ahmedabad2Amritsar1Raipur1Karnataka1Jabalpur1Cochin1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 44A3Section 69A2Addition to Income2Natural Justice2

SHREE ABHISHEK BIPINBHAI NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 12/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik I.T.O., (Prop. Of M/S Shivbhole Services), Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. House No. 1, Desai Faliyu, At Po Surat. Vaktana, Tal, Choryasi Via Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan No. Agppn 5994 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 69A

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 08/08/2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,37,920/- which consists of income from business of Rs. 1,78,673/- and income from other

S M CONSTRUCTION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 539/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Viral Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 148Section 194JSection 44A

section addition was made. (4) That, the Assessing officer failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the right perspective and order is issued without considering the reply of appellant, without issuing speaking order. Order issued was against the natural justice and need to be deleted. (5) That, without prejudice to above, an addition of Rs.275,378 being