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.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 32(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai689Chennai660Delhi630Kolkata455Bangalore265Hyderabad229Ahmedabad216Jaipur156Karnataka150Chandigarh138Pune126Nagpur115Amritsar89Raipur87Surat73Visakhapatnam70Lucknow66Indore65Panaji56Rajkot53Cuttack44Calcutta41SC33Cochin28Guwahati26Patna24Telangana17Agra16Allahabad15Varanasi11Jabalpur7Jodhpur7Dehradun6Rajasthan5Ranchi4Himachal Pradesh3Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Kerala1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 404Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 2503TDS3Deduction2Disallowance2Condonation of Delay2

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 263/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

1. For that Ld CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without appreciating the facts and grounds of appeal. 2. For that there is a double addition of Rs. 17,66,329/- to the extent that the same has been added by the Ld AO individually as well as included

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 262/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Bench:
Section 143(3)Section 40

1. For that Ld CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without appreciating the facts and grounds of appeal. 2. For that there is a double addition of Rs. 17,66,329/- to the extent that the same has been added by the Ld AO individually as well as included

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

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal under Section 250 without adjudicating the issues on merit, despite 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

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