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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 23(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,026Chennai1,010Mumbai942Kolkata578Pune530Bangalore440Hyderabad407Ahmedabad386Jaipur323Chandigarh196Karnataka183Visakhapatnam158Nagpur148Surat138Raipur132Amritsar123Cochin120Indore101Lucknow100Cuttack73Panaji64Rajkot58Patna54Calcutta49Guwahati40SC37Jodhpur33Agra23Telangana22Allahabad14Jabalpur14Varanasi14Dehradun10Orissa6Ranchi5Rajasthan4Andhra Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 405Addition to Income4Section 2503Section 1443Section 1473Section 194C3Condonation of Delay3Section 1482Section 250(6)

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 148
2
TDS2
Section 250
Section 250(6)
Section 69

23, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: 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

PAWAN KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..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 03.10.2024 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 15 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 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

23, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 03.10.2024 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

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

1. For that the learned officers below have erred in making addition of the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- especially in view of the fact that there was no agreement to make any payment under Section 194C and therefore provision of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct

GARIMA CONSTRUCTION,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

ITA 483/RAN/2024[22-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.483/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Garima Construction………….……………............................……….……Appellant M/11 Bariatu Housing Colony Bariatu Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834009. [Pan: Aasfg5282A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi...…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.24 Of The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,87,050. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Basis Of Information Received Through The Criu Portal Pursuant To A Search Operation Conducted On One Shri Naresh Kejriwal, Who Was Identified As A Hawala Entry Operator. Based On Such Information, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received Accommodation Entries Amounting To ₹20,50,000 & ₹1,95,61,000/- During The Relevant Year. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Submitted Details & Supporting Documents To Substantiate The Genuineness Of The Transactions. However, The Assessing Officer Was Not Satisfied With The Explanation

Section 144

23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹1,87,050. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of information received through the CRIU portal pursuant to a search

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

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