Search: condonation of delay

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 282A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Raipur5 Bangalore4 Indore3 Mumbai3 Hyderabad2 Amritsar2 Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 282A(1)7 Section 133(6)6 Section 1485 TDS5 Addition to Income5 Reassessment4 Limitation/Time-bar4 Section 143(2)3 Condonation of Delay3 Section 151

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Raman Vasu Thachisaril Ramanalayam Clappana, Kollam, Amrithapuri S.O-690 546 Kerala, India Pan: Adopt0795N

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 282A(1)

condone the delay of 396 days and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee through the Ground of appeal No.2 that though assessment has been completed u/s.147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), however, no valid notice u/s.148

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG