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.

9,356 results for “condonation of delay”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,436Mumbai1,386Delhi950Pune751Kolkata586Ahmedabad526Jaipur450Bangalore402Hyderabad367Chandigarh243Surat241Cochin241Indore184Karnataka175Raipur154Lucknow154Nagpur153Visakhapatnam141Cuttack132Rajkot118Amritsar94Patna75Agra63Calcutta54Guwahati52Panaji31Ranchi31Allahabad30Dehradun29SC27Jabalpur25Jodhpur20Varanasi12Telangana12Orissa4Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 250107Penalty70Addition to Income58Section 14754Section 271(1)(c)51Section 271(1)(b)45Section 143(3)41Section 234E40Section 142(1)35Section 148

SH. DAL CHAND SHARMA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 101/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

delay\ntherein may be condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had\nsufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, as evident from the\nplain language. of section 249 extracted as under:\n\"249(2) the appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date,\nthat is to say.-\n(a) Where the appeal

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 9,356 · Page 1 of 468

...
30
Condonation of Delay25
Limitation/Time-bar20
ITA 7339/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

condoned the delay in the interconnected penalty despite having condoned the delay in the interconnected penalty despite having condoned the delay

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7338/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

condoned the delay in the interconnected penalty despite having condoned the delay in the interconnected penalty despite having condoned the delay

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

condonation of delay and the relevant assessment record. It may be mentioned that the assessment order along with notice of demand and penalty

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4384/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

delay be condoned, the Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4383/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

delay be condoned, the Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

ITA 425/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 7. Similar submissions were provided by the assessee in the penalty

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

condoning the delay in filing the appeal / non-deposit of tax. Admittedly as recorded by the ld.CIT(A) in its order dt.04.03.2011, the amount of taxes was adjusted by the Revenue. However subsequently, the ld.CIT(A) in its order dt.19.02.2013 had mentioned that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs was not adjusted towards the self assessment tax but was adjusted towards

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

ITA 423/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 7. Similar submissions were provided by the assessee in the penalty

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

condonation of delay as per CBDT Circulars No. 02/2020 dated 03.01.2020 issued vide F.No.- 197/55/2018-ITA-I (For Form-10B). (F) It is also worthwhile to mention here that Hon’ble CBDT vide its circular (1/1148- CBDT F. No. 267/482/77-IT (Part) dated February 9, 1978--CBDT Bulletin Tech. XXIII/582.) (P.B.- 23) clarified that the exemption as available to trust under section

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

condonation of delay as per CBDT Circulars No. 02/2020 dated 03.01.2020 issued vide F.No.- 197/55/2018-ITA-I (For Form-10B). (F) It is also worthwhile to mention here that Hon’ble CBDT vide its circular (1/1148- CBDT F. No. 267/482/77-IT (Part) dated February 9, 1978--CBDT Bulletin Tech. XXIII/582.) (P.B.- 23) clarified that the exemption as available to trust under section

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3551/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence led by assessee before us, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 5. Coming to ITA No. 3351/Mum/2015 regarding levy of penalty

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 3552/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

condoning the delay and in the absence of any Page 11 of 18 ITA No.3551 & 3552/Mum/2015 Shree Swami Samarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (A.Y:2009-10) evidence led by assessee before us, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 5. Coming to ITA No. 3351/Mum/2015 regarding levy of penalty

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

penalty should not be imposed. It is further submitted that assessee narrated the aforesaid facts in condonation of delay application

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 522/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order

M/S.AL ZARAFA TRAVELS & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 519/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153CSection 179Section 230

penalty orders were to be prepared, vetted and filed. Considering this, the delay of 71 days from the date of receipt of assessment order by Smt. Susan Thomas's husband is reasonable. Even if the delay is taken as 510 days if the date of service of orders on ex-employee is treated as date of receipt of order