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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,627Delhi1,608Mumbai1,459Pune975Kolkata882Bangalore804Hyderabad755Jaipur561Ahmedabad529Chandigarh328Raipur307Surat305Nagpur292Visakhapatnam285Karnataka234Cochin220Amritsar192Indore191Cuttack149Rajkot136Lucknow125Panaji95Patna63Calcutta53SC53Jodhpur45Guwahati45Allahabad36Dehradun35Agra32Telangana32Jabalpur19Varanasi19Ranchi13Rajasthan7Orissa5Kerala5Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26384Section 12A47Section 1042Condonation of Delay42Section 143(3)41Section 14739Limitation/Time-bar36Addition to Income34Section 271A

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 149 · Page 1 of 8

...
29
Disallowance29
Penalty25
Section 271(1)(c)20

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

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 469/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/CTK/2019[2008--09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 262/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 270/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 267/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 264/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 269/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 263/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 265/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 268/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 368/CTK/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 470/CTK/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 261/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 471/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

13 days 2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10

M/S. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

ITA 210/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR
Section 120Section 12ASection 254(2)

Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The undersigned cannot ignore the violations of law the assessee indulged in and cannot grant registration on the basis of only the aims and objects, written in Memorandum of the Association. The CIT(E) observed that the he was satisfied that the activities of the association are not genuine and charitable based

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. As mentioned earlier, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by substantial cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. Heard

M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages