← All Phrases

“Section 249(2)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(2)(c)19 judgments

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

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, RURA,RURA, KANPUR DEHAT vs. CPC, BANGALORE ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

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

ITA 101/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

granting exemption under section 10 (26AAB). The Addl / JCIT(A) observed that the time limit to file the appeal as provided under section 249(2)(c) of the Act was 30 days of the date on which the intimation of the order sought to be appealed against was served. However

KAUSHALYA AGARWAL TRUST,INDORE vs. CPC BANGLORE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

ITA 890/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 154Section 164Section 246ASection 253

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nINDORE BENCH, INDORE\nBEFORE SHRI B.M

RAMJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI MOKARIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2(4), PORBANDAR

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

ITA 230/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2025AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)(c)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

cash deposited of\nRs.17,00,000/-. The appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limit provided for\nfiling the appeal as per section 249(2)(c) of the Act. On merit, the ld CIT(A) also\nheld that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Resultantly,\nunadmitted

VISHNU SHEKUJI GAJARE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

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

ITA 706/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishnu Shekuji Gajare, V The Income Tax Officer, Chikalthana, Jalna Road, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Aurangabad, Chikalthana I A, Chikalthana Industrial Area S.O, Maharashtra – 431006. Pan: Azppg9504M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 28.01.2025 For The A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 288Section 69A

would have rendered it impossible for him to file the appeal within the stipulated timeframe as mandated under Section 249(3) read with Section 249(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, after careful consideration, I hereby reject the condonation of delay for filing the appeal. It is held that

JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

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

ITA 464/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, DR
Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

whereas the appeal was filed on 29.12.2020, which was beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing of appeal. As per section 249(2)(C), the appeal was to be presented within 30 days after its service. However, in the present case, the appeal had been filed beyond time limit

SHREE PIPARDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 448/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 448/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20)

Section 143(1)Section 153Section 249(2)Section 80P

while the appeal was filed on 11.04.2024, which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing of the appeal. As per section 249(2)(c) the appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the intimation of the order sought to be appealed against

JAYESHKUMAR HARJANI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 2072/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: \nSmt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 249(2)(c)Section 68Section 69C

filed an appeal before\nthe Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, i.e., with a delay of 17 days from the prescribed\ntime limit under Section 249(2)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without\nadjudicating the appeal on merits, dismissed the same in limine on the\nground of delay

ABDUL GAFFAR SULEMAN CHHAPRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5398/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nShri Piyush Chhajed,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)(c)Section 50CSection 54

Assessing Officer on 22/12/2017 and the same was stated\nto have been received by the appellant on 27/12/2017. As per the\nprovisions of Section 249(2)(c), the appeal was to be filed before the\nCIT(A) on or before 26/01/2018 and there was delay of 148 days in filing

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,BIROLI BAZAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1) PURNEA, PURNIA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

order was served upon the assessee on 12.11.2018 and the appeal filed before him on 22.09.2019. He further noted that as per section 249(2)(c) of the Act, the appeal was required to file within 30 days and now the appeal contained a delay of about 180 days which

SALEM STARCH AND SAGO MANUFACTURERS SERVICE INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2648/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 51

while the appeal was filed on 02.05.2023, which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing of the appeal. As per section 249(2)(c) of the Act, the appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the intimation of the order sought

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, RURA,RURA, KANPUR DEHAT vs. CPC, BANGALORE ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

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

ITA 102/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 5

appeal was filed on 13-07-2019, which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing of the appeal. As per section 249(2)(c) the appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the intimation of the order sought to be appealed against

KISHORSINGH PRATAPSINGHJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)-3, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3643/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashish VermaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 249(2)(c)Section 68

assessee on 23.05.2017 in Form No.35. This filing is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing the appeal as per section 249(2)(c), according to which appeal should be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the notice of demand is sought to be appealed

JYOTI RECORD MFG COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE, BANGLORE

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

ITA 2592/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)

assessee on 18.03.2024 in Form No.35. This filing is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing the appeal as per section 249(2)(c), according to which appeal should be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the notice of demand is sought to be appealed

ANAND ENGINEERING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,TRICHY vs. DDIT, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1375/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1375/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Anand Engineering Products Pvt Vs. The Assessing Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) D-56, Developed Plots Estate, Chennai. Thuvakudi, Trichy 620 015. [Pan: Aafca 1512R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)

while the appeal was filed on 10.04.2024, which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing of the appeal. As per section 249(2)(c) of the Act, the appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the intimation of the order sought

VENKITESH SUBRAMANIAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee stands DISMISSED

ITA 913/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19 Venkitesh Subramanian Tc, 38/293, Shreebhavan, Chenthittai Street, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala-695036. Pan: Aweps4916P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2024

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127Section 143Section 24Section 249(2)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘SMC’ PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

SHRI BALAJI INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,MUMBAI vs. AO EXEM WD 2(3) , MMTNL BUILDING , PEDDAR ROAD , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1820/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Accou*Ntant Member & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Balaji International School Ao (Exemption), Wd- 2(3), Mumbai Balaji, Sunder Lane, Off Link Vs. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400064. Pan: Aaets 3506 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT/DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

against the aforesaid order on 01.09.2023 which was beyond the statutory time limit prescribed for filling of the appeal. As per section 249(2)(c), the appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the intimation of the order sought to be appealed is served

SAHARSH LAXMIRATAN DAGA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 491/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 57Section 57o

appeal was filed on 16-01-2019, which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing of the appeal. As per Section 249(2)(c) the appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the intimation of the order sought to be appealed against ... delay. Without verifying fact of the case, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the ground of delay for violation of section 249(2)(c) of the Act. The appeal was rejected on technicalgrounds. The merit was duly avoided by the ld. CIT(A) during passing of order

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2163/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Island Star Mall Developers Commissioner Of Income-Tax Private Limited (Appeals), Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Delhi Ground Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg, Circle 6(1)(2), 5 Th Floor, R. Vs. Shree Laxmi Woollen Mills No. 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Estate, Mumbai Mumbai-400 011 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabci4988F Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 249(2)(c)Section 250

served on 28.02.2019 and the appellant had filed the appeal within thirty days i.e. on 28.03.2019 as duly prescribed and covered under Section 249(2)(c) of the Act. Thus, the contention of the Hon'ble CIT(A) that there was delay in filing of appeal and the same