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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 22clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,161Delhi1,135Mumbai1,047Kolkata707Pune688Bangalore460Hyderabad452Ahmedabad389Jaipur368Patna199Karnataka185Chandigarh176Nagpur175Visakhapatnam164Surat152Amritsar126Raipur119Indore118Cochin99Lucknow93Cuttack88Panaji69Calcutta53Rajkot46SC39Jodhpur35Guwahati34Agra34Telangana26Allahabad17Varanasi13Dehradun12Jabalpur12Ranchi6Orissa5Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan4Andhra Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 234E26Section 200A20Condonation of Delay5Section 1544Section 2744TDS4Rectification u/s 1544Section 271(1)(c)2Section 80G

SHISHU NIKETAN TRUST,JAMSHEDPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 69/RAN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshishu Niketan Trust, C.I.T.(Exemption), Road No. 19, Farm Area, Kadma, Patna. Vs. Jamshedpur-831005 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aacts 5425 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 80G

Section 80G of the Act. It was a prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) so as to enable the assessee to comply with the notices within time. Shishu Niketan Trust Vs CIT(E) 4. In reply, the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection. 5. We have considered

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 353/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019AY 2013-14
2
Limitation/Time-bar2
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)
For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 354/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 355/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Periwal, CA(AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case

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

22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given