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 253(6)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai192Mumbai183Karnataka139Delhi133Kolkata113Ahmedabad91Indore85Bangalore73Jaipur67Lucknow57Surat43Pune40Chandigarh38Raipur35Panaji27Hyderabad25Allahabad24Cuttack24Rajkot16Varanasi15Patna12Guwahati10Ranchi9Nagpur9Jabalpur8Amritsar8Jodhpur4SC4Agra3Telangana2Visakhapatnam2Rajasthan1Cochin1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)4Section 139(1)3Section 36(1)(va)2

THE NARSAPUR BRAHMANA SAMAKHYA,NARSAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALKOL

In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is dismissed in- limine

ITA 738/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A). The Reasons Given For Delayed Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Are As Follows :

Section 143(1)Section 253(5)

c) There is no malafide intention or deliberate lapse on the part of the appellant. In view of the same, the appellant has requested before the Ld.CIT(A) that the delay may be condoned and adjudicate the matter on merits. 3. After considering the submissions of the appellant society, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the condonation of delay in filing

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Visakhapatnam
08 Mar 2022
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above said decisions, we find no reason to differ with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question