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 292Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi43Chennai27Amritsar27Mumbai27Bangalore22Kolkata19Jaipur14Nagpur12Ahmedabad9Cuttack6Raipur6Visakhapatnam4Indore4Hyderabad3Cochin3Lucknow2Pune2Dehradun2SC2Surat2Calcutta1Rajkot1Agra1Chandigarh1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271A45Section 27420Section 2717Penalty6Limitation/Time-bar6Section 139(1)5Undisclosed Income5Condonation of Delay5Section 292B

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

3

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 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. 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SRI BAJRANG KUMAR AGRAWAL, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/CTK/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshmamat, CIT DR
Section 271Section 292B

section 292B) has been enacted to curtail and negate technical pleas due to any defect, mistake or omission in a notice/summons/return. The provision was enacted by Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 with effect from 1st October, 1975. It has a salutary purpose and ensures that technical objection, without substance and when there is effective compliance or compliance with intent