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.

12 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 226(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka175Chennai132Delhi99Mumbai99Hyderabad54Pune52Raipur47Jaipur46Bangalore44Ahmedabad36Kolkata34Indore18Guwahati16Surat16Lucknow14Jodhpur13Cuttack12Visakhapatnam7Nagpur7SC6Panaji6Chandigarh4Telangana4Cochin4Rajkot4Rajasthan3Calcutta2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 26315Section 26012Section 36(1)(va)10Section 119Section 43B8Section 153A7Section 153C7Section 12A6Condonation of Delay

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

delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. Heard on the merits of the appeal 7. Now, we shall proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee challenging the order passed u/s.263 of the Act. 8. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Pr.CIT has invoked his powers u/s.263

6
Limitation/Time-bar6
Revision u/s 2635
Disallowance4

M/S. NORTH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.,BALASORE vs. DCIT (TDS-II), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 280/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Oct 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Patra, CA ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 254

delay, we condone along with other connected appeals. 3. Since the issue and facts involved in these appeals are interconnected and common, they are being heard and disposed off through consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.280/CTK/2015 for the assessment year 2008-2009, wherein the assessee

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2005-06
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/CTK/2020[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Jun 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaorissa Cricket Association, Barabati Statidum, Cuttack Pan No.Aaaao 0319 F …………….. Assessee Versus Acit (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

Section 153ASection 153C

condone the delay of 210 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search & seizure conducted on 28.03.2016 in the residential premises of Sri Ashirbad Behera, Secretary of the assessee. It was the submission that in the course of search one set of document

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 109/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate with Shri
Section 133ASection 153ASection 292CSection 69Section 69C

Delay condoned. We have perused the review petition and find that the tax effect in this case is above Rs.1 crore, that is, Rs.6,59,27,298/-. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have recalled our order dated 17th September, 2018, since the order was passed only on the basis that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone 2 the delay of 784 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee and appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, who derives income from letting out of house property and income from share transaction. The assessee had filed its return of income

TAPAN JENA,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE BALASORE & ADIT, CPC-BANGALORE, BALASORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 87/CTK/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(1)Section 22Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay occurred in both the appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. The only issue in both the appeals is the confirmation of disallowance u/s.43B of the Act in respect of the delay in payment of PF & ESI under the respective Acts but paid before the due date of filing of the return. It was the submission

TAPAN JENA,GURGAON vs. ACIT BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE, BALESORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 28/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(1)Section 22Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay occurred in both the appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. The only issue in both the appeals is the confirmation of disallowance u/s.43B of the Act in respect of the delay in payment of PF & ESI under the respective Acts but paid before the due date of filing of the return. It was the submission

JAGANNATH CORPORATION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 70/CTK/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.69 & 70/Ctk/2022 22 Assessment Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019 19 & 2019-2020 Jagannath Corporation Projects Jagannath Corporation Projects Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Pvt Ltd., Plot No.397, Sarangi Pvt Ltd., Plot No.397, Sarangi Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar Road, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaccj 3043 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwal Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 22Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 186 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for hearing. 5. The sole issue involved in both the appeals is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.12,42,472/- and Rs.17,61,598/- u/s.43B of the Act in respect of the delay in payment of PF & ESI under the respective Acts

JAGANNATH CORPORATION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 69/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.69 & 70/Ctk/2022 22 Assessment Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019 19 & 2019-2020 Jagannath Corporation Projects Jagannath Corporation Projects Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Pvt Ltd., Plot No.397, Sarangi Pvt Ltd., Plot No.397, Sarangi Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar Road, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaccj 3043 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwal Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 22Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 186 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for hearing. 5. The sole issue involved in both the appeals is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.12,42,472/- and Rs.17,61,598/- u/s.43B of the Act in respect of the delay in payment of PF & ESI under the respective Acts