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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 220(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna468Chennai101Mumbai72Delhi71Pune57Ahmedabad56Kolkata49Jaipur37Bangalore34Panaji30Visakhapatnam27Hyderabad24Indore14Nagpur13Cochin12Guwahati11Lucknow11Chandigarh9Cuttack7Raipur7Agra6Dehradun5Surat4Rajkot3Amritsar3SC2Varanasi2Ranchi1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 685Limitation/Time-bar3Section 143(2)2Section 1482Addition to Income2Condonation of Delay2

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

condone the delay in filing of appeal and allow the appeal to be proceeded with on merit. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: 5. “[1] On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal

KALIDAS KURJIBHAI BAVARIYA,BARDOLI, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BARDOLI

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

ITA 390/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.390/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Kalidas Kurjibhai Bavariya, Vs. The Ito, 5/B, Tulsi Park, Gandhi Road, Ward-2, Bardoli, Surat - 394601 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aynpb4062A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144

220) days. For this effective delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was feeling severe illness and for that ld. Counsel produced before us medical bills, prescriptions and various reports such as blood sugar, bold glucose analysis and other reports of Doctors. I note that assessee is a 75 years old farmer and uneducated person therefore does

LABHUBEN MANUBHAI MANGUKIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

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

ITA 773/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.773/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Labhuben Manubhai Mangukiya. Vs. The Ito, 24, Ramkrishna Society, L.H. Road, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat - 395006 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aczpm1695G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 23.10.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

ITA 561/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 5

2 Rajeshbhai D Dungarani Vs ITO for the revenue submits that in absence of proper explanation, delay may not be condoned. 4. I have considered the contention of both the parties and perused the record carefully. As recorded above, there is delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that