Search: condonation of delay

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 26327 Section 26012 Section 119 Section 12A6 Section 143(3)5 Revision u/s 2635 Section 153A4 Limitation/Time-bar4 Section 11(1)(a)

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

section 254(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 categorically provides that “the Tribunal is to give both the parties to appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass P a g e 6 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 such orders thereon as it thinks fit”. Admittedly, the Tribunal does have the power to condone the delay. The Tribunal being

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAMUNA REALTY PVT. LTD. ,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK