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.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai914Delhi897Mumbai876Kolkata599Pune473Bangalore419Hyderabad306Ahmedabad270Jaipur251Nagpur177Karnataka161Chandigarh153Raipur121Surat96Amritsar95Lucknow88Indore83Visakhapatnam71Panaji69Cuttack55Calcutta52Rajkot50Patna45Cochin34SC33Telangana21Varanasi17Allahabad17Dehradun13Agra12Guwahati11Jabalpur10Jodhpur9Kerala5Rajasthan4Orissa4Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 801B8Section 271(1)(c)5Section 2745Section 143(1)(a)4Section 139(1)4Section 139(4)2Section 1392Section 8012Deduction

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

2
Condonation of Delay2

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

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

27,663/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation