← All Phrases

“Section 249(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(2)529 judgments

SHABD PRATAP SATSANG,SHABD PRATAP ASHRAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL

SEVABHAVI BRAMNAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT RAVTALE CHIPLU,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2784/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2784/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ward-1, Ratnagiri Ravtale Chiplu, Burumtali Chiplun, Ratnagiri – 415605, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra Pan : Aadas7630J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 69A

before limitation expired, it was not possible for the appellant to file the appeal within time as mandated u/s 249(3) read with section 249(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, condonation of delay for filing appeal is rejected and it is held that the instant appeal is barred

TULU KOOTA AIROLI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-EXMP WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5791/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(2)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC” BENCH\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH

VASUDHA PREMKUMAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59(2) , NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5372/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250

filed the appeal on\n12/11/2024, The appeal preferred by the appellant is well within the\nprescribed time limit of 30 days as per section 249(2) of the Income\nTax Act., 1961 and therefore there is no question of condonation of\ndelay in filing the Appeal.\n\n3. The appellant

VASUDHA PREMKUMAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 59(2) , NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5371/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250

filed the appeal on 12/11/2024, The appeal preferred by the appellant is well within the prescribed time limit of 30 days as per section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act., 1961 and therefore there is no question of condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. 3. The appellant craves

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1369/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 250

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE\nBEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND SHRI VINAY

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

RAMESH LALAWAT,VASHI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8838/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

appeal of appellant merely stating the appellant's appeal was not filed on time within the time limit as per the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and rejected the application for condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. 2 ... from ground no.1 raised by the assessee that first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was also barred by limitation under provisions of section 249(2) on account of delay of 114 days in filing the said appeal, whereby ld. CIT(A) had rejected the application for condonation of delay

AIR WIND GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 274

penalty order was passed on 24.07.2023 and the same was served on the assessee on the same date. As per the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, the assessee was required to file the appeal on or before 24.08.2023. However, the appeal was filed only on 15.08.2024, resulting

NRUPESH SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed with cost for statistical purposes

ITA 164/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarnrupesh Shah, Huf V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, बनाम 34(3)(2) Heritage View Building, It Office, Kautilya Bhavan, Dadabhai X Road No. 3, Ville Bkc Bandra East, Parle (West), Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 051, 400056, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahhn0469H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 68

filing of the appeal and as P a g e | 3 SA No. 9/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Nrupesh Shah HUF, Mumbai per section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal had to be filed within 30 days of the service of the order to the appellant

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessment order as 25.03.2025, and since the appeal was filed on 06.04.2025, he claims that the appeal is within the time prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. 4 Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) Further, to substantiate his claim of non-service of the assessment

JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

ITA 8893/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

learned CIT(A) noted that the appeal before him was filed\nwith a delay of 492 days beyond the limitation period prescribed\nunder section 249(2) of the Act. The assessee had sought\ncondonation of delay stating that the communications issued by the\nDepartment were not noticed as the emails

N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2044/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 43B

subject to fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub section (1) and after expiry of the period of filing the appeal as per section 249(2), grant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA, where, the proceedings for penalty u/s 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred

ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 586/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL

JINDAL COMMODITIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 2905/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

delay is not sought by the appellant, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. I am also satisfied

SHABANA KAIZER JANGBARWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-42(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurpose

ITA 8636/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 69C

erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the\nappeal is not filed in time as provided under section 249(2) of the Act without appreciating\nthat assessee had filed application for condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the appeal,\nexplaining the reasons namely

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7339/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

demonstrate sufficient appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence for non evidence for non-filing the appeal within due time. Section 249 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, mentions as under: Section 249 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, mentions as under: Section 249 (2 ... limit of 30 days from date of service as per section prescribed time limit of 30 days from date of service as per section 249(2) of the Act and any delay the 249(2) of the Act and any delay therein may be condoned only rein may be condoned

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7338/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

demonstrate sufficient appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence for non evidence for non-filing the appeal within due time. Section 249 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, mentions as under: Section 249 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, mentions as under: Section 249 (2 ... limit of 30 days from date of service as per section prescribed time limit of 30 days from date of service as per section 249(2) of the Act and any delay the 249(2) of the Act and any delay therein may be condoned only rein may be condoned

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Showing 1–20 of 529 · Page 1 of 27

...