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.

2,936 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 132clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi477Chennai409Mumbai356Hyderabad211Kolkata193Bangalore170Jaipur139Ahmedabad122Karnataka112Chandigarh109Pune87Amritsar81Surat74Visakhapatnam67Calcutta36Cochin34Nagpur33Indore31Rajkot26Guwahati22Patna19Raipur18Lucknow18Cuttack15Panaji14Telangana11Ranchi10Dehradun10SC9Jodhpur8Orissa6Kerala4Allahabad1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income73Section 143(3)63Section 153A63Section 13245Section 14742Section 6835Section 153D32Limitation/Time-bar31Condonation of Delay31Section 142(1)

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

132 of the act was carried out in case of assessee on 04.01.2018. The case was centralized and notice u/s. 153A was issued to assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18. In response to the notice u/s. 153A, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 on 08.02.2019. Page

Showing 1–20 of 2,936 · Page 1 of 147

...
29
Search & Seizure29
Section 14828

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

condoned. 2. Ajmer Sharaf & Co., Vs. ITO 61 Taxmann.com (Madras) – Each day delay needs to be explained – 754 days delay rejected. 3. Vama Apparels (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 102 Taxmann.com 398 (Bombay), 2019- delay of 507 days rejected.” 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before we decide on the issue

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

132 of the act was carried out in case of assessee on 04.01.2018. The case was centralized and notice u/s. 153A was issued to assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18. In response to the notice u/s. 153A, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment years

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 41 of 115 ii. Assessments

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 41 of 115 ii. Assessments

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 41 of 115 ii. Assessments

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

condoned delay in preferring appeal by assessee and decide case on merits - Held, yes[Paras 23 to 25] [In favour of assessee] In view of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that in the instant case there is sufficient cause with assessee on account of which appeal could not be filed on time. Even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (supra) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (supra). 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

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

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

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

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019