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.

65 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 13(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi876Chennai821Mumbai819Hyderabad472Jaipur426Pune423Kolkata405Bangalore386Ahmedabad366Raipur293Chandigarh246Surat216Nagpur206Visakhapatnam178Indore140Rajkot124Amritsar116Cochin103Lucknow94Panaji74Cuttack65Patna59SC58Jodhpur29Dehradun29Agra24Guwahati20Jabalpur17Allahabad14Varanasi10Ranchi8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1

Key Topics

Section 26368Section 12A59Section 143(3)33Section 14733Condonation of Delay29Limitation/Time-bar24Penalty24Disallowance22Section 271(1)(c)

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 437/CTK/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

10 after the due date of filing of return of income can be condoned not rectified. 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted before us that there was delayed filing of Form No.10 but section 13

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

21
Section 14418
Addition to Income17
Section 272A(1)(d)16

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 436/CTK/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

10 after the due date of filing of return of income can be condoned not rectified. 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted before us that there was delayed filing of Form No.10 but section 13

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

ITA 301/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CA walla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 4

condonation of delay for not filing of its return of income within the statutory time limit, before the CBDT u/s 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, which has expressed provision for admission of claim of any exemption after the expiry of the period specified in the Income Tax Act. 2.4.2 In view of the above, it is humbly submitted

SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD,, BHUANESWAR

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

ITA 406/CTK/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brajabandhu Bihari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 3Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to which, we would not try to apply the facts in the present case. P a g e 5 | 9 ITA Nos.405 & 406 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-2022 9. The next principle is that in order to advance substantial justice, the law of limitation should not be defeated. A perusal of present

SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 405/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brajabandhu Bihari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 3Section 5

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to which, we would not try to apply the facts in the present case. P a g e 5 | 9 ITA Nos.405 & 406 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-2022 9. The next principle is that in order to advance substantial justice, the law of limitation should not be defeated. A perusal of present

WOMEN ORGANISATION FOR SOCIO CULTURAL AWARNESS,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “01 That this application arises out of the Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee causing a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. 02. That the Petitioner is an Income Tax assessee. It filed the Audit Report in Form No. 10B for the financial year

SULTAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,SUNDARPADA, BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 29/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay . It is already conceded by ld. Sr. Advocate representing assessee that the assessee does not have any case on the merits of the issue raised by ld. PCIT in his revisionary order dated 18.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the 1961 Act. The only surving issue before me is the limitation for invoking the provisions of Section

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 151/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Ms Archita Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(3)

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is being disposed off on merits. 7. It was submitted by ld AR that there are three issues in the appeal. The first issue was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the estimation of the profit at 8% by the Assessing Officer as against

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 499/CTK/2025[2015016]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 503/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), , BHUBANEWSWAR

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

ITA 497/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 496/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 500/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 504/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 502/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 498/CTK/2025[2015016]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD.,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 37/CTK/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar JenaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 249

Section 246A of the Act, therefore, merely because there was a technical flaw or violation of not filing the appeal initially by electronically which was admittedly complied by the assessee subsequently on 25.07.2019, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the appeal of the assessee cannot be thrown away. At the best, we may say that there

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T CIRCLE2(1), CUTTACK CIRCLE, CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 36/CTK/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar JenaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 249

Section 246A of the Act, therefore, merely because there was a technical flaw or violation of not filing the appeal initially by electronically which was admittedly complied by the assessee subsequently on 25.07.2019, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the appeal of the assessee cannot be thrown away. At the best, we may say that there

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

ITA 1/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)

13. In reply, ld CIT DR and Sr DR argued that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities to represent its case but the assessee failed to comply the same. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the grounds of condonation of delay taken by the appellant after giving the thoughtful consideration to the same

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)

13. In reply, ld CIT DR and Sr DR argued that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities to represent its case but the assessee failed to comply the same. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the grounds of condonation of delay taken by the appellant after giving the thoughtful consideration to the same