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.

878 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai147Bangalore132Ahmedabad89Delhi84Hyderabad73Jaipur60Chandigarh44Pune40Chennai32Kolkata24Karnataka21Nagpur20Indore17Rajkot17Patna13Lucknow10Cochin9Raipur9Surat8Visakhapatnam6Guwahati6Jodhpur5Allahabad4Agra3Jabalpur3Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 234A90Addition to Income76Section 14768Section 14857Section 25054Limitation/Time-bar40Section 15435Section 143(1)32Disallowance30Section 143(3)

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6881/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

delay in filing the appeal may kindly eal may kindly be condoned. 2. Ground no. 2: 2. Ground no. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah & Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Showing 1–20 of 878 · Page 1 of 44

...
26
Penalty25
Natural Justice25
For Respondent:

delay in filing the appeal may kindly eal may kindly be condoned. 2. Ground no. 2: 2. Ground no. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 327/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC ("Ld. DCIT, CPC") grossly erred by disallowing an amount of INR 24,54,650 in respect of expense

TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 305/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 80E

condoning such a significant delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 147", "Sec. 250", "Sec. 80E", "Sec. 234A", "Sec. 234B

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Girish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144Section 156Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 270A

condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "263", "144", "156", "143(3)", "10AA", "115JB", "234A

SATPUDA FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

delay should be condoned; therefore without considering the circular order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The appellant denies liability of interest U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the income Tax Act, 1961, without prejudice the levy of interest is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.” 3. Facts in Brief:– In the present case, the assessee Trust is registered under

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act The Id. AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration declaring

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

ITA 1110/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 249Section 249(2)

condonation of delay. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in Conducting proceedings ex-parte, not providing adequate and meaningful opportunities to present the case, relying on unverified information without giving an opportunity to rebut. Ground No. 4: 7 ITA No.1110/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

234A was not leviable. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C: 12. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Each one of the above grounds is without prejudice to the other and without prejudice to the grounds of appeal taken earlier. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

234A, B and C of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground in its appeal stating that” “The Ld. CIT (A)-8, Hyderabad has erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal U/s. 249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

234A, B and C of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground in its appeal stating that” “The Ld. CIT (A)-8, Hyderabad has erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal U/s. 249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised

D.K. ASHOK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 846/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Pnada, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244A

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in the assessment order for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.24.12.2009. There was a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide order dt.22.5.2012, holding it as non- maintainable on technical grounds, by not condoning

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

234A", "Section 234B" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the audit report is fatal to the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the condonation

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1109/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1110/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1106/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1107/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1108/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1111/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 2. Sant Kabir Mahasabha Versus The CIT (Exemption) Chandigarh (ITA No. 84/CHD/2023) (ITAT, Chandigarh) Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income