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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai131Karnataka102Chennai93Kolkata86Delhi77Chandigarh76Bangalore66Jaipur61Pune51Panaji38Ahmedabad36Cochin23Hyderabad16Indore16Lucknow11Surat9Amritsar8Nagpur8Rajkot6Cuttack6Varanasi5Visakhapatnam4Raipur4SC2Telangana2Guwahati2Calcutta2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271A45Section 27420Condonation of Delay6Section 139(1)5Section 2715Penalty5Undisclosed Income5Limitation/Time-bar5

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 312/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 313/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 311/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

MR. SAGIR ALAM KHAN,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, , KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessed is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.354/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Mr. Sagir Alam Khan, Vs Ito, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar At : Magurgadia, Po: Keonjhargarh Dist : Keonjhar-758001 Pan No. : Anvpk 1400 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is engaged in the business of footwear. The assessee had purchased a property for Rs.14 2 lakhs whereas the actual value has been shown at Rs.22 lakhs