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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 65(12)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai370Mumbai320Delhi289Kolkata167Bangalore162Karnataka133Ahmedabad131Hyderabad126Chandigarh96Jaipur94Visakhapatnam52Pune50Nagpur43Amritsar40Calcutta36Surat31Indore29Lucknow25Cuttack17Rajkot15SC14Telangana11Patna11Agra10Raipur9Guwahati8Dehradun7Varanasi7Allahabad6Cochin5Orissa3Jodhpur3Rajasthan2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Addition to Income8Section 2636Section 80P(2)(d)4Section 142A4Section 201(1)4Limitation/Time-bar4Section 143(2)3Section 68

RANCHI FUELS, BALODA BAZAR, BHATAPARA,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 532/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.532/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranchi Fuels Limtara, Nandghat, Baloda Bazar-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aatfr0836L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act, and that too in absence of counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue opposing the application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit. The ITAT ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather

3
Section 2503
Disallowance3
Survey u/s 133A3

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 434/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 434/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 183Section 250Section 69A

65,96,250/-. Prayed to delete the addition of Rs.1,78,96,250/-.” 3. The concise facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee u/s 144 was completed on 27.09.2019, wherein the assessed income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.1,78,96,250/- by making an addition on account of unexplained money

VANDANA NARENDRA LODHA, PUNE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 419/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It A No: 419/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: None (adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69

65,512/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act by observing that the assessee was unable to produce evidence, neither during the search operations nor during the assessment proceedings regarding the source of investment in gold jewellery, dimond jewellery, silver artcles etc. found in the search action. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. BALAJEE LOHA PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

ITA 356/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 356/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

65,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit received by the assessee in the guise of share capital and premium. 5. Per contra, Shri Bikram Jain, Authorized Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) representing the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had rightly, judiciously and according to settled principle of law have deliberated upon the issue and have decided

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHORRA,GARIYABAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

ITA 25/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section which kindly be allowed. 3 5. That under the facts and the law the Ld.CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi further erred in confirming the rejection of claim of the appellant for deduction of commission income earned at Rs. 2,73,661 u/s. 80P(2). Prayed that the above income is deductible u/s. 80P(2). 6.That Under the facts

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M P P W D DN,,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHILAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 294/RPR/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 294/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Executive Engineer, M P P W D Dn P W Division (B/R) G.E. Road, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Tan: Jbpe00177C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Arvind Chand Surana &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194J of the Act and had made payments towards technical services to one single party, viz. M/s. Creative Architect, Raipur, of Rs.8,51,117/- without deducting tax at source on the said amount. Based on the aforesaid fact, the A.O. held the assessee in default and saddled it with liability towards tax u/s.201(1) of Rs.85,112/- and interest

SHREE KRISHNA COLONISERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

65,000/- Baloda Bazar Total 10,41,27,000/- 15,18,53,000/- Copy of valuer's report is at page no. 42 to 54, 82 to 92 and 123 to 127 of PB. ITA No. 96/RPR/2022, Shri Krishna Builders 2. During assessment proceedings, assessee objected to valuation done by the Department's valuer Shri Manish Pilliwar. The assessment order

SHREE KRISHNA BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

65,000/- Baloda Bazar Total 10,41,27,000/- 15,18,53,000/- Copy of valuer's report is at page no. 42 to 54, 82 to 92 and 123 to 127 of PB. ITA No. 96/RPR/2022, Shri Krishna Builders 2. During assessment proceedings, assessee objected to valuation done by the Department's valuer Shri Manish Pilliwar. The assessment order

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, PACHEDA, ABHANPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR

ITA 114/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Village- Pacheda, Block-Abhanpur, Chhatisgarh-493 661 Pan : Aaaag9886H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 80P(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

delay involved in filing of the present appeal, therefore, I am of the considered view that the same having occasioned on account of bonafide reasons merits to be condoned. 3. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal has sought adjudication of issues involving purely legal issues which would not require looking any further beyond the facts