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.

6 results for “condonation of delay”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai186Chennai179Delhi150Kolkata72Chandigarh57Bangalore54Hyderabad51Jaipur44Amritsar42Pune34Ahmedabad34Indore27Lucknow23Cochin16SC14Cuttack13Raipur12Surat9Jodhpur8Rajkot8Patna7Nagpur6Visakhapatnam5Guwahati5Allahabad2Panaji1Jabalpur1Ranchi1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 76Depreciation6Addition to Income5Condonation of Delay5Disallowance4Section 143(3)3Section 143Section 139(4)2Section 1542

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 380/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 7

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 60,00,000 representing unaccounted income which is illegal, and which

Section 143(1)2
Deduction2
Bogus Purchases2

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 223/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 220/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written

DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD-4, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

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

ITA 547/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(4)

condonation of delay in filing form 9A in the instant case but revision, therefore above referred CBDT circulars bear no relevance to the issue in hand. After taking all the facts and submission of the appellant into consideration, I find no reason to obviate from the view of the AO, therefore addition made the AO is sustained. 5.4.3 In view

GIRAD GRAMIN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD-1, WARDHA

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

ITA 2/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 34Section 80P

delay is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the JAO vide assessment order dated 01.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act disallowed the deduction claimed to the tune of Rs.5,81,751/- u/s 80P of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.487/- on account of difference in depreciation

MOONLIGHT STUDIO,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 287/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 154

condonation of delay in filing the return of income was already pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur. (2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in making adjustment to the returned income merely through electronic processing The action of AO is beyond