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 108clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai178Mumbai170Karnataka122Delhi100Kolkata100Ahmedabad92Bangalore65Jaipur49Pune49Hyderabad48Calcutta38Chandigarh37Cuttack25Rajkot25Nagpur23Indore21Guwahati16Surat14Lucknow11Agra11Patna10Cochin9Raipur6SC5Jodhpur5Amritsar4Punjab & Haryana3Visakhapatnam2Jabalpur2Telangana2Orissa1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1483Section 1442Section 143(3)2Section 143(2)2

NARRA GANGA DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 243/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 243/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Narra Ganga Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer,] Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Anwpn8051F Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 148

condone the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual did not file her return of income for the AY 2012- 13. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that during

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

delayed, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as the requirement to issue notice cannot be dispensed with. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. S.G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 761 (Delhi) had, inter alia, held that where the assessee company had filed the return income