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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur28Lucknow12Bangalore12Mumbai12Pune8Kolkata8Indore7Varanasi6Chennai6Raipur4Hyderabad4Ahmedabad3Delhi3Surat3Nagpur2Visakhapatnam2Patna1Chandigarh1Amritsar1SC1Allahabad1Cochin1Jodhpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)8Section 107Section 1546Section 1446Section 271(1)(c)6Section 194D5TDS4Condonation of Delay3Section 250

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

condone the delay of 57 days involved in the captioned appeal. 5. Both the parties unanimously conceded that the facts and issues involved in the present appeal are exactly identical with the facts in the case of Mitesh Singhania Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, ITA No.410/RPR/2025, dated 22.07.2025. The Tribunal in the aforesaid case had dealt with the similar

2
Section 1472
Exemption2
Addition to Income2

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194DSection 80C(5)

delay in filing of appeal is therefore condoned and appeal admitted. 5.3 The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, all of which are however against the single issue of taxing the maturity proceeds received from life insurance policy upon its surrender. Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant is an individual and had taken a life insurance

KUSHAL PRASAD SAHU, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 14/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 14 & 15/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 140ASection 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80C

Condonation of delay. He also filed order against which appeal has been preferred. Prayed that there was no defect in appeal filed. Order of CIT(A) is unjustified, the appeal kindly be admitted & be decided. 2. That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi further e1Ted in confirming the Penalty levied by the learned

KUSHAL PRASAD SAHU, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 15/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 14 & 15/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 140ASection 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80C

Condonation of delay. He also filed order against which appeal has been preferred. Prayed that there was no defect in appeal filed. Order of CIT(A) is unjustified, the appeal kindly be admitted & be decided. 2. That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi further e1Ted in confirming the Penalty levied by the learned