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 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai324Surat168Delhi162Chennai152Karnataka103Kolkata89Jaipur79Ahmedabad74Pune67Bangalore46Calcutta44Chandigarh40Cochin39Hyderabad37Raipur32Visakhapatnam31Rajkot25Lucknow25Indore23Guwahati15Cuttack12Nagpur11Varanasi7Allahabad5SC4Agra3Amritsar3Patna3Panaji2Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)13Section 13910Section 254(1)10Section 2638Section 153A7Section 12A6Search & Seizure6Section 1435Section 139(1)5

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)

254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 before the Tribunal to recall its earlier order in ITA No.232/CTK/2010 dated 27.06.2014 in the light of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CIT, Kanpur & Ors vs. Society for the Promotion of Education Allahabad, Civil Appeal No.1478 of 2016, SLP (C) No. 9705 of 2009 and requested to hold

Condonation of Delay4
Addition to Income2
Exemption2

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 365/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 263

delay in filing of the appeal is not liable to be condoned. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of section 254(1

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

254 (Guj) and CIT vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Guj) 278 (FB) : (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj)(FB)). Now coming to the assessee’s case whether it can be termed as a “State” or not we submit that; - That, on 23rd March 1974, “The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974” had been notified

M/S. NALCO MINES EMPLOYEES UNION,KORAPUT vs. PR.CIT-1, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off with the directions to the competent authority –ld

ITA 26/CTK/2021[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Pramod Kumar Moharana, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar.Of Nalco Mines Employees‟ Union, At: D-9, Sector-1, Nalco Township, Damanjodi,Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No.Aclpm 0589 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Basudev Panda, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Pr. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2017-18. Application Of Applicant/Assessee For Condonation Of Delay :- 2. Ld. Senior Counsel On Application Dated 28.03.2021 Submitted That The Hon‟Ble High Court Of Orissa Was Pleased To Direct To File Appeal Before The Tribunal For Adjudication & The Matter Was Disposed Of Vide W.P.(C) No.24445/2020, Dated 05.01.2021 & I.A.No.250/2021 Vide Dated 17.03.2021 For Consideration Of Explanation Of Assessee For The Delay In P A G E 1 | 20 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Panda, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 119(2)(b)

condonation of delay and separately furnished to be allowed in toto. 13. Accordingly, ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the issue regarding population of the particular place since was already considered by competent authorities were accepted by the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Court and further scrutiny and review of the matter is beyond of the jurisdiction

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 733/CTK/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem fit. Obviously, this cannot be interpreted to say that the Tribunal has got the powers granted by the Constitution under Article 32 or Article 141 of the Constitution

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 734/CTK/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem fit. Obviously, this cannot be interpreted to say that the Tribunal has got the powers granted by the Constitution under Article 32 or Article 141 of the Constitution

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 732/CTK/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem fit. Obviously, this cannot be interpreted to say that the Tribunal has got the powers granted by the Constitution under Article 32 or Article 141 of the Constitution

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. HI TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 737/CTK/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem fit. Obviously, this cannot be interpreted to say that the Tribunal has got the powers granted by the Constitution under Article 32 or Article 141 of the Constitution

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. HI TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 738/CTK/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem fit. Obviously, this cannot be interpreted to say that the Tribunal has got the powers granted by the Constitution under Article 32 or Article 141 of the Constitution

SUSI CHARITABLE TRUST,KHURDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

condone the delay and to consider the assessee’s prayer for registration u/s.80G of the Act. 3. In reply, ld. CIT-DR submitted that he had no objection if the issue is restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) to consider the reasons for the delay and to consider the prayer of the assessee. 4. We have considered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. Rajendra Rajendra Prasad Prasad Gupta, Gupta, Income Tax, Central Cir Income Tax, Central Circle, 1/15, 1/15, Civil Civil Township, Township, Sambalpur Rourkela-769004 769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Abdpg 9284 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Padhi, Advs Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid and SudarshanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

condonation of delay, wherever necessary. It is brought to attention that the time limit for filing Miscellaneous Application before ITAT is 6 months from the end of the month in which order is passed by the ITAT, as per section 254 of the Act. On receipt of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT/High Court, as the case

BALADEB MOHAPATRA,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.344/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Shri Baladeb Mohapatra, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Paradeep Pahana, Pankapal, Jagatsinghpur Pan No. : Akhpm 1731 F (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka,Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 20.06.2016 For The A.Y.2011-2012. 2. This Appeal Was Already Disposed Off By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.08.2017. Thereafter The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court, Which Was Registered As Income Tax Appeal No.51/2017 & The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Order Dated 06.02.2019 Has Directed The Tribunal To Decide The Review Petition To Be Filed By The Assessee As Expeditiously As Possible, Preferably Within A Period Of Four Months From The Date Of Filing Of Such Review Petition. Accordingly, The Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Before The Tribunal & The Tribunal Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee & 2 With A Compliance To The Order Of The Hon’Ble High Court, Stated Supra

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka,DR

condonation of delay while considering the review by the Tribunal. 6. Original copy of the impugned order may be returned to the appellant substituting attested photocopies thereof. 7. With the above observation/direction, the appeal stands disposed of. All connected Misc. Cases/I.As. are disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application