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.

232 results for “condonation of delay”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,026Chennai1,810Delhi1,630Kolkata1,228Pune926Ahmedabad918Hyderabad818Bangalore728Jaipur645Chandigarh503Surat385Patna378Indore377Raipur346Cochin286Lucknow285Visakhapatnam275Amritsar261Supreme Court261Rajkot242Nagpur232Agra199Cuttack190Panaji141Guwahati74Jodhpur70Dehradun68Jabalpur64Allahabad44Ranchi27Varanasi20

Key Topics

Section 153C93Addition to Income85Section 25056Section 143(3)55Condonation of Delay49Section 153A45Section 6843Section 14833Section 26330

SATPUDA FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

addition of Rs.15,00,000/-; therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Satpuda Foundation ITA no.143/Nag./2021 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appcal Centre erred in not accepting the contention of assessee and disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 11(2) of the Income

Showing 1–20 of 232 · Page 1 of 12

...
Section 14730
Penalty24
Limitation/Time-bar18

GURPALSINGH CHANANSINGH NAGRA,AKOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

ITA 206/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. However, a cost of ` 5,000, is levied upon the assessee for the delay in filing the petition, which should be paid to the account of The Nagpur High Court Legal Service Committee. In all fairness, the learned Counsel for the assessee agreed

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

condonation of delay which in the form of Affidavit. The contents of the said Affidavit is enumerated below for ready reference:– “1) The accompanying appeal is preferred against the order dated 15/02/2023, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in Order on Original No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049799557(1) interalia ordering addition

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

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

ITA 129/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” 5 Nageshwara Charitable Trust The assessee being unsuccessful in first appellate proceedings is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned Counsel, Shri Kapil Hirani, appearing for the assessee, at the very outset, drew our attention to the meticulous written

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 128/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” 5 Nageshwara Charitable Trust The assessee being unsuccessful in first appellate proceedings is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned Counsel, Shri Kapil Hirani, appearing for the assessee, at the very outset, drew our attention to the meticulous written

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR vs. DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 572/NAG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 12Section 138

condone the delay and take on record the written statement is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that the written statement, already filed, be taken on record and the same be considered in accordance with law. It is reported that an interim injunction application is pending before the learned Trial Court since long. We direct the learned Trial

DNYANESHWAR BAPURAO CHUNADE,BHADRAWATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

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

ITA 624/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250

addition of ` 2,53,46,788/– has been made by the Assessing Officer, mainly for want of limitation and/or delay of 202 days in filing the first appeal before him and not giving any explanation with regard to such delay. The assessee in Form No.35 specified the reasons for condonation of delay, which reads as under:– “A. That the Assessee

LOKSEWA SHIKSHAN BAHUUDDESHIYA MANDAL,BULDHANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 148Section 253(3)

Income Tax-I, Nagpur dated 11.11.2014 passed under section 12AA(1) of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1] On the facts and circumstances of the case and material already on record the learned CIT should have granted registration u/s. 12A as per Assessee’s application filed on Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by concluding that the condonation of delay is not allowed as the assessee has a lackadaisical approach and in a nonchalant manner the assessee is attempting to seek condonation of delay and, hence, CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of Bhawana Hariram Lavhale ITA no.169-170/Nag

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by concluding that the condonation of delay is not allowed as the assessee has a lackadaisical approach and in a nonchalant manner the assessee is attempting to seek condonation of delay and, hence, CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of Bhawana Hariram Lavhale ITA no.169-170/Nag

SANT TUKDOJI NAGRI SHAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED, HINGANGHAT,HINGANGHAT vs. ITO WARD - 2, WARDHA

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

ITA 356/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 234ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

condonation of delay and adjudicated the various grounds on merits. Dismissal of appeal is not in accordance with law. 2 Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. 3. The order passed by A.O. u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 4. The income assessed by A.O. at Rs.78,52,056/- is illegal

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 6. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the facts are, the assessee is an Individual. For the year under consideration, on 31/01/2018, the assessee filed his return of income electronically, disclosing total income of ` 12,96,33,940. During the course of regular assessment framed under

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4),NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 536/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 544/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

PAWAN SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 534/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 549/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 537/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Income Tax, Central, Nagpur erred in not considering that the order passed by assessing officer making addition of Rs. 5,57,10,000/-on protective basis U/s. 68 is pending before CIT(A) and thereby propose to make further addition of Rs. 4,60,00,000/- on same issue, therefore the order passed U/s. 263 is illegal, invalid

VIDHI MINERALS AND ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43B

income of the assessee company at Rs.23,72,430/- vide order dated 30.11.2015 passed u/sec.143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 1146 days. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the it had forwarded documents

ABDUL IRFAN ABDUL AJIJ SHEIKH,WARDHA vs. ITO, WARD-2, WARDHA

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

ITA 78/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that appellant did not submit medical proof of delayed filing