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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 124(3)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai128Chennai127Karnataka122Delhi106Bangalore93Ahmedabad72Kolkata61Hyderabad48Calcutta42Pune33Chandigarh27Raipur26Rajkot25Jaipur23Lucknow15Ranchi14Cuttack14Indore12Surat11Visakhapatnam8Nagpur7Guwahati6SC6Jodhpur3Telangana3Amritsar3Varanasi3Jabalpur2Patna2Agra1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Cochin1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)12Addition to Income7Section 2636Section 143(2)6Section 142(1)4Condonation of Delay4Reassessment4Section 1483Section 147

SADHIKA GANNI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 205/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had during the year under consideration made cash deposits of Rs.1 crore in her bank account with HDFC Bank Account No.50100077065070, Branch: Rajamahendravaram on 12.11.2016, which thereafter was transferred to another account held by one Sri Bhaskara Rao on 14.11.2016. 8. On a perusal

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

3
Section 145(3)3
Section 36(1)(iii)3
Revision u/s 2632
ITA 266/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Visakhapatnam
18 Jul 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 124(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 249(3)Section 282Section 44A

124(3) and principles of natural justice. 3. Invalid Service of Notices: Notices and the assessment order were sent to an unregistered email ID, violating Rule 127 and Section 282 of the Income- tax Act. 4. Failure to Consider Detailed Reply to Notice under Section 142(1): The AO ignored the appellant's response to the notice under Section

GULIPALLI SATISH,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

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

ITA 413/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 413/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gulipalli Satish, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bobbili. Ward-1, Pan: Cbnpg3883K Vizianagaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07/11/2023 calling for the details. However, the assessee has not submitted any details. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice U/s. 144 of the Act on 19/12/2023, however, the assessee did not submit any details. Further, another show cause notice

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

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, emerges from the record. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that in a case where the re-assessment proceedings are initiated by the AO based on a notice issued under section 148 of the Act, there is no further obligation cast upon him to thereafter issue a separate notice

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 131/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

124 days respectively. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeals could not be filed in time due to his ill health during Covid pandemic which is beyond his 2 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali control. The assessee pleaded for condonation the delay and for admitting the appeals

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,KHANDAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, THANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 157/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

124 days respectively. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeals could not be filed in time due to his ill health during Covid pandemic which is beyond his 2 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali control. The assessee pleaded for condonation the delay and for admitting the appeals

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM ,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, , TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 160/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

124 days respectively. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeals could not be filed in time due to his ill health during Covid pandemic which is beyond his 2 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali control. The assessee pleaded for condonation the delay and for admitting the appeals

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.237/Viz/2020, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case