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 40(1)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai817Mumbai720Delhi690Kolkata483Bangalore272Ahmedabad250Hyderabad240Jaipur215Pune170Karnataka148Nagpur100Surat96Chandigarh95Raipur85Indore78Amritsar59Cochin55Visakhapatnam53Lucknow50Calcutta44Cuttack44Rajkot41Panaji36Patna28SC27Telangana20Varanasi14Allahabad12Jodhpur10Dehradun9Guwahati8Jabalpur8Orissa5Rajasthan5Agra3Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 409Section 194C3Section 143(3)3TDS3Disallowance3Addition to Income3Condonation 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

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

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

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