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.

22 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 85clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai427Chennai392Delhi308Kolkata242Ahmedabad162Karnataka129Bangalore124Hyderabad112Jaipur112Pune91Surat72Chandigarh69Indore44Rajkot43Calcutta38Cochin38Nagpur32Cuttack29Visakhapatnam28Raipur27Lucknow23Ranchi22Kerala17Patna12SC10Amritsar9Agra8Guwahati8Allahabad7Jabalpur5Jodhpur5Panaji4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)28Penalty16Limitation/Time-bar13Section 2749Section 153A6Reassessment5Section 132(1)3Section 132(4)3Capital Gains

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/RAN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

85 taxman, com 351 (Madras) the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeal) along with an application for condone nation of delay of 175 days. The assessee claimed that delay occurred since he was waiting outcome of penalty order. The Commissioner (Appeals) however refused to condone the delay. The ITAT as later (as also confirmed h the High Court

ALOK KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/RAN/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

85 taxman, com 351 (Madras) the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeal) along with an application for condone nation of delay of 175 days. The assessee claimed that delay occurred since he was waiting outcome of penalty order. The Commissioner (Appeals) however refused to condone the delay. The ITAT as later (as also confirmed h the High Court

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

3
Long Term Capital Gains3
Undisclosed Income3
Section 11(2)2

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

85 taxman, com 351 (Madras) the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeal) along with an application for condone nation of delay of 175 days. The assessee claimed that delay occurred since he was waiting outcome of penalty order. The Commissioner (Appeals) however refused to condone the delay. The ITAT as later (as also confirmed h the High Court

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

85 taxman, com 351 (Madras) the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeal) along with an application for condone nation of delay of 175 days. The assessee claimed that delay occurred since he was waiting outcome of penalty order. The Commissioner (Appeals) however refused to condone the delay. The ITAT as later (as also confirmed h the High Court

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

85 taxman, com 351 (Madras) the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeal) along with an application for condone nation of delay of 175 days. The assessee claimed that delay occurred since he was waiting outcome of penalty order. The Commissioner (Appeals) however refused to condone the delay. The ITAT as later (as also confirmed h the High Court

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

85, & 86/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAFCM 3714 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/02/2025

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

85, & 86/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAFCM 3714 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/02/2025

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

85, & 86/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAFCM 3714 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/02/2025

M/S. EKLAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 251/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 245 to 251/Ran/2024 Eklavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 239/RAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 239 to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 247/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 245 to 251/Ran/2024 Eklavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 242/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 239 to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 244/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 239 to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 239 to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 246/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 245 to 251/Ran/2024 Eklavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT. LTD.,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 243/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 239 to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 250/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 245 to 251/Ran/2024 Eklavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 245/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 245 to 251/Ran/2024 Eklavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 248/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 245 to 251/Ran/2024 Eklavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused

M/S. EKLAVYA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay. 3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. ITA No. 239 to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused