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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 142(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai615Kolkata554Delhi495Chennai462Hyderabad389Ahmedabad328Jaipur294Bangalore270Pune265Visakhapatnam164Surat158Indore138Chandigarh127Karnataka104Rajkot101Lucknow97Patna92Amritsar77Cochin62Nagpur60Calcutta48Cuttack44Raipur43Panaji40Agra37Dehradun24Guwahati23Allahabad20Jabalpur18Varanasi15Jodhpur11SC11Telangana9Ranchi7Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 801B8Section 117Condonation of Delay5Section 1474Section 1484Section 143(1)(a)4Section 139(1)4Section 173Section 13(1)

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

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 of the Act amounting to Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT

3
Addition to Income3
Deduction3
Cash Deposit2

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

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 of the Act amounting to Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT

HOLYFAITH TRIBAL W AND D TRUST ,RANCHI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

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

ITA 69/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, I.T.O., 406, Midland East Apartment, 406, Midland East Apartment, Exemption Ward, Exemption Ward, Vs. Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaath 5200 R Aaath 5200 R Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 13(1)Section 133(6)Section 17

delay of about four months in filing this appeal before this Tribunal is condoned. 4. Now coming to the merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 21/10/2016 in Form ITR-7 and claimed exemption under Section

BABY CHATTERJEE,RANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 241/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Baby Chatterjee, I.T.O., 2A/2B, Krishna Enclave, North Office Ward 1(3), Vs. Para, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Anppc 8818 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

delay of about one month in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had declared income under the head 'income from salary and income from other sources (interest)' for the assessment year under consideration and declared total income at ₹ 4,16,400/- . The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

1 Disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 3,08,005/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of Flat. This amount was received from sister, Kumari Sonali for payment of stamp duty and registration. She is my sister and received the amount as gift which is not taxable as received from relative. Kumari Sonali, Doner

ANKITA AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.499/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ankita Agarwal………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Near Kali Mandir, Harharguttu, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831002. [Pan: Atkpa9502A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..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 : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.06.2024 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’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 125 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of serving notices for hearing and the Tribunal cannot keep this appeal pending for indefinite time due to non-representation. Therefore, in the absence of any authorised representative of the assessee

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

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices. Consequently, the AO I.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Rajendra Kumar Sahi completed the assessment ex parte and determined the total income at ₹32,28,841. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was delayed