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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,634Mumbai2,499Delhi2,247Kolkata1,483Pune1,341Bangalore1,265Hyderabad912Ahmedabad827Jaipur720Surat423Chandigarh420Raipur360Nagpur354Indore305Visakhapatnam278Lucknow270Amritsar259Karnataka256Cochin248Rajkot234Cuttack174Patna153Panaji136Calcutta82Agra81Guwahati66Dehradun59SC56Jodhpur54Telangana40Allahabad35Varanasi32Jabalpur31Ranchi23Rajasthan9Kerala7Punjab & Haryana7Orissa7Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)45Section 27437Section 153A16Condonation of Delay12Penalty11Section 12A10Section 132(1)9Section 132(4)9Section 40

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

10,59,797/- U/s 40(a)(ia) being 30% of the above expenses Rs. 35,32,658/- for non deduction of TDS is fit to be deleted since TDS as required was rightly deducted and paid by the assessee. The reasons for non deduction was not looked into by the Ld AG and as such, the addition made

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

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

9
Capital Gains9
Long Term Capital Gains9
Undisclosed Income9
Bench:
Section 143(3)Section 40

10,59,797/- U/s 40(a)(ia) being 30% of the above expenses Rs. 35,32,658/- for non deduction of TDS is fit to be deleted since TDS as required was rightly deducted and paid by the assessee. The reasons for non deduction was not looked into by the Ld AG and as such, the addition made

MAKHAN LAL GUPTA,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2013-14 Makhan Makhan Lal Lal Gupta, Gupta, Acc Acc Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Income Tax Officer, Ward Limited, Limited, Sindri Sindri Cement Cement 1(10, Dhanbad 1(10, Dhanbad Work, Acc Colony, Sindri , Work, Acc Colony, Sindri , Dhanbad Pan/Gir No. No. Auzpg 5573 D Appellant Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn.Petition) (Adjn.Petition) Revenue Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr. Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2 2025

For Appellant: None (Adjn.petition)For Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

section did not condone the delay in filing of appeal. In our P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2013-14 considered opinion, such delay needs to be condoned, because according to him, the notices were sent in wrong address and he was not aware of the fact and only when he came to know about passing of orders

S S CHARITABLE TRUST,DUMKA vs. CIT APPEAL, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust stands allowed

ITA 49/RAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.49/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 S S Charitable Trust..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant S S Vidya Vihar School, New Kumar Para, Near Dudhani Rasikpur, Asharam Road, Jharkhand-814110. [Pan: Aafts1387R] Vs. Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi…………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Dated 30.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 234Section 250

condone the delay in filing Form 10 in cases in which assessees were prevented by reasonable cause of filing the Form 10 in time. The ld. I.T.A. No.49/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 S S Charitable Trust Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that Form 10 was duly filed before the Assessing Officer and was very much available

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

HRIDAAN ENTERPRISE,DUMKA vs. ITO, DUMKA

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

ITA 262/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Hridaan Enterprises, I.T.O., Bhagalpur Road, Dumka. Dumka. Vs. Pan No. Aajfh 3035 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 68

section 115BBE of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. The assessee prayed to give one more opportunity and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other

JAMSHEDPUR MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,JAMSHEDPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 157/RAN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jamshedpur Management Association, C.I.T.(Exemption), 18, Centre For Excellence, Ch Area Patna Vs. (East), Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaeaj 2108 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is a society and filed an application in Form 10AB before the ld. CIT(E), Patna on 20/10/2022 for grant of regular registration under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A read with section

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 under Section 80IB

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 under Section 80IB

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,RANCHI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 399/RAN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) National University Of Study & Assistant Director Of Research In Law, Ranchi, Income Tax, Vs. Nusrl Campus, Pithoria Road, P.O- C.P.C., Bangaluru. Burku At Nagri, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaajn 0847 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143

10 was successfully filed on 28/10/2020 for the Financial Year under consideration and a request was made to condone the delay in filing of return due to genuine problem. 3. However, the institute received an intimation under sub-Section

ANIL KUMAR SINHA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayanil Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Patho House, Kanti Ganesh Market, Ward-1(1), Vs. S.N. Road Chowk, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001. Pan No. Bggps 1888 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 264

Section 264 and evidences were produced before him. However, the ld. CIT had not granted the requisite relief, consequently, the assessee had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and after getting the necessary relief from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, has filed the appeal before Anil Kr. Sinha

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

RINKU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

NITU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

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

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 270ASection 274

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited unlisted company, engaged in the real estate business. Survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted in the case of assessee

SACHIN PODDAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay. 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice