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”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,884Mumbai1,765Delhi1,115Pune1,017Bangalore979Kolkata878Patna658Hyderabad482Ahmedabad433Jaipur394Nagpur338Cochin308Chandigarh233Indore183Surat160Lucknow152Raipur146Visakhapatnam125Panaji123Karnataka114Cuttack104Amritsar103Rajkot97Dehradun38Agra36Jodhpur35Calcutta34SC32Varanasi23Allahabad23Telangana23Guwahati22Jabalpur12Ranchi9Orissa5Rajasthan3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 409Section 801B8Addition to Income7TDS6Condonation of Delay6Deduction5Section 143(1)(a)4Section 139(1)4Disallowance4

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 263/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

deduction was not looked into by the Ld AG and as such, the addition made U/s 40(a)(ia) is fit to be deleted. 5. For that any other grounds in detail shall be argued at the time of hearing." 2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 65 days in filing this appeal

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 262/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194C3
Section 143(3)3
Section 139(4)2
Bench:
Section 143(3)Section 40

deduction was not looked into by the Ld AG and as such, the addition made U/s 40(a)(ia) is fit to be deleted. 5. For that any other grounds in detail shall be argued at the time of hearing." 2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 65 days in filing this appeal

MOUNT OLIVE'S WELFARE TRUST,GUMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD- RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 252/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal was due to the fact that after corona virus

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Goenka, ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr hri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR

condone the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld AR that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of Rs.10,35,000/- representing the cash payment paid to labourers in respect of construction of certain building on behalf of the trust by holding

M/S. JUNIOR CHAMBER INTERNATIONAL,,RANCHI vs. ITO , EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 33/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 12A

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant society is an association of young entrepreneurs and it is a society registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The case of appellant was selected for limited

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

delay of 173 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

delay of 173 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 19/RAN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

condone the delay of 52 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for hearing on merit. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and runs a hospital. The assessee filed return of income on 28/09/2013 disclosing total income of ₹ 37,09,380/-. The case was selected

MOTOREX FINANCE PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 115/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymotorex Finance Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 1A, Grant Lane, Kolkata-700012 (West Ward 4(1), Vs. Bengal). Kolkata. Pan No. Aaccm 1042 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. On merit, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an NBFC. It was a submission that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had sold shares to an extent of Rs. 9,35,85,560/-. The assessee had also received interest income to an extent

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHI,RANCHI vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

ITA 148/RAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

Section 250

deducted. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted a possibility that the assessee had shown low income in order to reduce taxable profits. It was also observed that the assessee had claimed significantly higher TDS in the revised ITR. Therefore, the AO intended to verify the genuineness of the additional TDS claim and whether the corresponding receipts had been offered