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 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai816Mumbai713Delhi691Kolkata453Hyderabad347Pune316Ahmedabad280Bangalore258Jaipur224Karnataka148Visakhapatnam103Chandigarh101Nagpur100Surat96Indore86Raipur86Cochin79Cuttack70Amritsar63Lucknow49Calcutta48Panaji36Rajkot31Patna27SC27Jodhpur21Telangana21Guwahati16Varanasi14Allahabad12Jabalpur9Dehradun9Agra7Rajasthan5Orissa5Ranchi5Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26313Section 4013Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Section 194C3TDS3Disallowance3Condonation of Delay3Deduction2

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

Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct TDS then only 30% of the amount can be disallowed. 1.1 For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 26,478/- because the appellant had produced all the supporting vouchers of the diesel expenses. Making the addition

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

40(a)(ia) is fit to be deleted. 5. For that any other grounds in detail shall be argued at the time of hearing." 2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 65 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee

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

40(a)(ia) is fit to be deleted. 5. For that any other grounds in detail shall be argued at the time of hearing." 2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 65 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee

SHRI VIJAY PRASAD,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. PR. CIT, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 130/RAN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2012-2013 Sri Vijay Prasad, Vs The Principal Cit, 161, Thana No.745, Central, Patna Balijhoran, Nowamundi, West Singhbum-711102 Pan No. : Ailpp 0228 L Respondent (Appellant) .

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sutariya, CIT(A), JSR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has made the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Before us the ld. AR could not controvert the finding of the CIT that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We are in agreement with the order passed

SHRI SACHIDANAND PRASAD,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. SRI MAHABIR PRASAD RUNGTA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 131/RAN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2012-2013 Sri Sachidanand Prasad, Vs The Principal Cit, 161, Thana No.745, Central, Patna Balijhoran, Nowamundi, West Singhbum-711102 Pan No. : Abwpp 8560 D Respondent (Appellant) .

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sutariya, CIT(A), JSR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has made the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Before us the ld. AR could not controvert the finding of the CIT that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We are in agreement with the order passed