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 2(24)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,124Delhi961Mumbai940Kolkata702Pune537Hyderabad483Bangalore470Ahmedabad409Jaipur360Chandigarh192Karnataka186Nagpur154Visakhapatnam141Surat131Indore125Cochin123Amritsar113Raipur112Cuttack103Lucknow93Rajkot69Panaji67Patna52Calcutta49Guwahati34SC34Jodhpur29Telangana27Agra18Allahabad17Jabalpur15Varanasi14Ranchi7Rajasthan7Dehradun6Orissa6Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Reassessment5Section 2744Section 2502Section 271(1)(c)2

ALOK KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/RAN/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/RAN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 118/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mallik, JCIT, ld. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delay condoned. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is , accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we cancel the penalty levied of Rs. 11,24,721/- by the AO U/Sec.271(1)( c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT-A. Accordingly, the grounds

INDIAN EDUCATION TRUST,DHANBAD vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEAL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI

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

ITA 442/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Indian Education Trust, Exemption Ward, Shishu Vihar, Bastacolla, Dhansar, Dhanbad. Vs. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaati 4414 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. That the order passed under Section 250 is perverse, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice as adequate opportunities were not provided for presenting the case. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the entire revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,24