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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Charitable Trustclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai491Mumbai400Ahmedabad320Pune282Bangalore207Jaipur186Delhi175Kolkata155Karnataka132Hyderabad99Cuttack50Surat50Chandigarh49Amritsar45Indore45Lucknow42Rajkot34Nagpur32Cochin32Visakhapatnam30Patna23Jodhpur19Raipur18Agra17Jabalpur8Ranchi8Guwahati5Allahabad5Panaji5Varanasi5Calcutta3Dehradun2SC2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1012Section 14810Section 13(1)(c)5Section 12A4Section 13(3)4Section 119(2)3Exemption3Section 112Section 144r

THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 10/VNS/2020[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 10

condonation of delay was examined by Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Roland Educational and Charitable Trust

ABHISHEK SEWA SANSTHA,CHANDAULI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 79/VNS/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Nov 2023AY 2021-2022

Bench: Us That Relevant Fact & Correct Position Of Law Has Not Been Considered By Ld. Pcit, Therefore Same Are Discussed In Brief.

2
For Appellant: Shri. S.K. Garg Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Robin Chaoudhary
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 154Section 80G

delay when Audit report in Form 10B was obtained earlier and UDIN was also generated before time but could not be filed within due date of 15th March 2022 to a trust found to be carrying on genuine charitable activities. From the perusal of petition of condonation

SURYA CHARITABLE TRUST,,VARANASI vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 142/ALLD/2018[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

Charitable Trust, Varanasi v. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow appeal with tribunal. We have heard ld. CIT-DR who has strenuously argued to dismiss this appeal. We have also carefully perused the material on record. This appeal is filed belatedly by assessee by 220 days beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The assessee has filed an application

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

delay and latches will not be sufficient to discharge her onus, as the amount stood credited in her bank account , and she has to explain satisfactorily sources of credit in the said account. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee has failed to discharge her onus and the additions were rightly made by the AO and confirmed

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

delay and latches will not be sufficient to discharge her onus, as the amount stood credited in her bank account , and she has to explain satisfactorily sources of credit in the said account. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee has failed to discharge her onus and the additions were rightly made by the AO and confirmed