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.

40 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai280Chennai214Indore167Delhi165Ahmedabad156Karnataka139Kolkata130Jaipur124Surat115Lucknow105Bangalore97Chandigarh57Cochin45Pune41Cuttack40Panaji39Hyderabad32Allahabad31Rajkot29Nagpur25Patna24Jabalpur21Varanasi19Jodhpur18Visakhapatnam17Raipur14Guwahati11Ranchi9Amritsar6SC4Telangana2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1042Section 14724Charitable Trust14Penalty12Limitation/Time-bar12Section 14811Reassessment11Condonation of Delay10Disallowance

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

D E R Per George Mathan, JM George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the Act passed by the ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 dated

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 270A8
Section 272A(1)(d)8
Section 271D8

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

1. There is a delay of 315 days in filing of present appeal. The revision order u/s.263 was received by the appellant on 05.04.2019 and as such the appeal was required to be filed on 04.06.2019. The appeal was filed on 20th April, 2021 resulting in a delay of 315 days. In the application for condonation of delay

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

D' in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education(supra). In these circumstances, we hold that the assessee is a "State" under the Article 289 of the Constitution of India and is entitled for immunity from taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the case of the assessee Board, it is an authority within the territory

ORISSA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 8.9.2016, for the assessment year 2012-2013 . 2. Ground No.1 of the appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.2,22,365/- under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1

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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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 2/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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SANDHYA MALLICK ,KENDRAPADA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 172/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Axwpm 2241 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate K.K.Bal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 24.9.2018 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Assessee, Wherein, It Is Stated As Under: , Wherein, It Is Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr

D E R Per C.M.Garg g, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar dated 24.9.2018 for the assessment year

M/S ZERINA MARINE (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 115/CTK/2022[1998-99]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.115/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :1998-1999) M/S Zerina Marines (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Bhubaneswar At-67, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aaacz 2200 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subit Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 253(5)

D E R Per Bench : This an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar, dated 21.05.2003 passed in I.T.Appeal No.0002/02-03 for the assessment year 1998-1999. Heard on the adjournment application: 2. The ld. AR of the assessee has filed an adjournment letter saying that he needs more time to prepare

DREAM INDIA TRANSFORMATION,NABARANGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR

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

ITA 341/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 253

D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. In this case, there is a delay of 308 days has been reported by the ITAT Registry, for which a petition has been filed as under: “For Delay of 521 Days in Filing Appeal under Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1. That the present Appeal is being preferred

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

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

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

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

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

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

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

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

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

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee