condonation of delay — 12,312 case laws

Ditto Dinaharan, Thiruvallur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvallur

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

ITA 2927/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2927/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ditto Dinaharan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16, Dasarpuram Ii Street, Thiruninravur, Ward 2, Tiruvallur 602 024. Tiruvallur. [Pan:Acgpt4614H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Akshit A Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 218 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Akshit A Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 218 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.2927/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated

Thamizharasi, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward 1, Villupuram

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

ITA 2925/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2925/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thamizharasi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, Mohan Nagar, Tirukkanur Salai Ward 1, Kaleetheerthalkuppam, Villupuram. Puducherry 605 107. [Pan:Bfbpt0613M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. D. Nidhi Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 79 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Ms. D. Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 79 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we 2 I.T.A. No.2925/Chny/24 find the reasons stated

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 3/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Ramchandra DakeFor Respondent: \nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

that there is a delay of 592 days in filing of the same on which the Revenue Department by filing the petition for condonation for delay dated June 12, 2023 has claimed that the AO being in charge of Central Circle-1 holding the charge since mid of September ... condoned.\n\n26.1 On the contrary, the Assessee though not refuted the aforesaid claim of the Revenue Department, however, objected to the condonation of delay.\n\n26.2 Having heard the parties, we observe that the reasons stated by the AO for the delay occurred in filing the CO appears

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asst, CIT, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

appeal of the Appellant Company by P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 not condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay As such, both the orders passed by the learned A.O. and CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, the learned

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asst.CIT, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

appeal of the Appellant Company by P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 not condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay As such, both the orders passed by the learned A.O. and CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, the learned

Sahoo Diostributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt.CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

appeal of the Appellant Company by P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 not condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay As such, both the orders passed by the learned A.O. and CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, the learned

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt.CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

appeal of the Appellant Company by P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 not condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay As such, both the orders passed by the learned A.O. and CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, the learned

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

appeal of the Appellant Company by P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 not condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay As such, both the orders passed by the learned A.O. and CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, the learned

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

appeal of the Appellant Company by P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 not condoning the delay of 433 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay As such, both the orders passed by the learned A.O. and CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, the learned

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpue vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 24/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant

Section 270ASection 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned ... particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders P a g e 5 | 11 ITA Nos.22 to 32, 35 & 57/CTK/2025 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation

“condonation of delay”

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Ditto Dinaharan, Thiruvallur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvallur

Thamizharasi, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward 1, Villupuram

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asst, CIT, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asst.CIT, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square

Sahoo Diostributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt.CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt.CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Sahoo Distributers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpue vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack