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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 251(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai145Mumbai122Karnataka102Delhi88Ahmedabad77Pune73Kolkata71Raipur61Bangalore58Jaipur43Hyderabad43Lucknow23Nagpur22Surat20Indore20Panaji16Patna16Chandigarh14Rajkot9Jodhpur5Amritsar5Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Cuttack3Guwahati3Jabalpur3Calcutta2Rajasthan1SC1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1478Section 2505Section 963Addition to Income3Section 250(6)2Section 148A2Section 1482Section 69A2Section 2(37)

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

ITA 177/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2023-24
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(37)Section 250Section 254Section 96

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It accepted the assessee's plea that compensation from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land under the National Highways Act, 1956, is exempt under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Tribunal also considered that the land might not be a 'capital asset' as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

2
Unexplained Money2
Cash Deposit2
Natural Justice2

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 01.02.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.39,17,731/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As discernible from the record, the CIT(A), having taken cognizance of the fact that the assessee despite having been put to notice

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 01.02.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.39,17,731/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As discernible from the record, the CIT(A), having taken cognizance of the fact that the assessee despite having been put to notice