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.

46 results for “condonation of delay”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai520Kolkata334Mumbai329Delhi295Ahmedabad197Hyderabad176Jaipur157Bangalore128Pune95Surat79Indore60Amritsar56Rajkot54Chandigarh51Raipur46Nagpur41Calcutta39Visakhapatnam39Panaji34Lucknow33Patna26Cochin22Cuttack14Allahabad10Dehradun9Agra8Guwahati8Jodhpur7Jabalpur6Varanasi5Karnataka2SC1Ranchi1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)95Section 143(3)47Addition to Income44TDS24Section 6822Natural Justice22Disallowance22Deduction21Section 80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KOSMARRA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 324/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, MADELI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

19
Section 6917
Section 26314
Section 14713

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 325/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA, KURUD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 336/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 334/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 327/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 331/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 335/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 333/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 332/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI ,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 329/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KURUD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 323/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 326/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 330/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 328/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DONAR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 341/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DONAR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 340/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 339/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 337/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 338/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the 'ear/ fed CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders

PRADEEP KUMAR KHANDELWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 260ASection 69

condoned the delay of 309 days and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. 4. Now coming to the merits of the case, the facts as emanated clearly from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are extracted as follows: “5. DECISION: In this case, the assessment