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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 86clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai425Mumbai346Kolkata272Delhi257Ahmedabad168Bangalore162Karnataka126Jaipur112Hyderabad103Pune88Chandigarh71Nagpur70Indore46Cuttack41Calcutta37Surat37Cochin31Visakhapatnam30Lucknow24Kerala17Rajkot16Jodhpur14Patna10SC10Amritsar9Guwahati9Raipur8Panaji8Allahabad4Telangana3Himachal Pradesh2Varanasi2Agra1Jabalpur1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Ranchi1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26316Section 14710Section 1548Section 106Section 1444Addition to Income4Revision u/s 2633Natural Justice3Section 250

RAKESH KUMAR, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI,, DURG

ITA 140/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 140/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

Section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition by the Ld. AO through the impugned assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal of assessee is dismissed on account of delay of 346 days in filing of appeal, by rejecting the request for condonation of delay of the assessee

2
Section 1482
Section 143(3)2
Limitation/Time-bar2

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 744/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 154(2)(B)Section 154(8)Section 155Section 186Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

86[ from the end of the financial year in which the order87 sought to be amended was passed.] SECTION 154(8)-88[(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee 89(or by the deductor] 90[or by the collector] on or after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. AKSHAY LODHA, RAIPUR

ITA 160/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 160/Rpr/2022 Co No.10/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Akshay Lodha B-26, 27 Gate No.11, Pandri, Textile Market Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipl3634P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

condone the delay of 53 days involved in the filing of the same. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee, who is engaged in the wholesale trading business of cloth, saree & textiles, had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.53,47,080/-. 5 ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Vs. Akshay Lodha CO. 10/RPR/2022

THE REDIANT WAY SCHOOL,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE THE CHIF COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 15/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 253

delay in filing of appeal of the assessee is condoned and it is decided to dispose off the appeal is on merits. 7. Now, to adjudicate the main issue challenge by the assessee in this appeal apropos - rejecting application for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), we have heard and considered the rival contentions as under

M/S BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/RPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 263/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Bharat Agro Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Raipur Industries Vs. Near Bajrang Power, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Urla Sarora Road, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb8665M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

Delay occurred in filing appeal before the Tribunal is thus condoned. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on merits. 7.1 The first allegation concerns infringement of Section 40A(3) of the Act and consequent applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this regard, it is the case of the assessee that purchases were made from

ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

86 to 87 of the Paper Book. The assessee submitted specific replies in response to the notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notice, copies whereof are placed on Page No. 84 to 85 and Page No. 88 to 97 of the Paper Book respectively. 7.3 There was a conscious application of mind by the Learned A.O and the Learned

SWISS LIFESTYLE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.25/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Swiss Lifestyle Naidu Complex, Near Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Acgfs7296G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 44ASection 68

condone the delay of 116 days and proceed with the matter on merits. 3. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and doing business of luxury items like watches, perfumes etc. has e- filed its return of income alongwith Audit Report u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

condonation of the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 2.2 We have given a thoughtful consideration and considering the circumstances leading to the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal r.w the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court admit the same. 3. We shall first deal with the additional