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”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai910Mumbai865Kolkata574Delhi476Pune394Hyderabad314Bangalore284Ahmedabad280Jaipur223Chandigarh181Cochin106Cuttack98Surat93Lucknow91Visakhapatnam88Karnataka88Raipur80Indore76Nagpur55Amritsar53Calcutta44Rajkot39Patna35Jodhpur24SC23Guwahati19Telangana17Allahabad14Panaji12Agra10Varanasi9Dehradun8Ranchi5Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 26312Section 801B8Section 404Section 143(1)(a)4Section 139(1)4Section 143(3)2Section 139(4)2Section 1392Addition to Income

M/S R P SINGH & CO,RANCHI vs. DCIT / ACIT, CIRCLE -1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Rp Singh & Company, Dcit/Acit, West End Park, Sukhdeo Nagar, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001. (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabfr 8083 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

loss could be caused to the assessee but by condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, the assessee would also know what is the mistakes that he has committed. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal is liable to be condoned and we do so. 6. On merit, it was submitted

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

2
Deduction2
Condonation of Delay2
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

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 of the Act amounting to Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT

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

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 of the Act amounting to Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT

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

loss account under the head transportation /hire charges, therefore, the CIT observed that failure on the part of AO to apply 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

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

loss account under the head transportation /hire charges, therefore, the CIT observed that failure on the part of AO to apply 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