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.

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 124(3)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai128Chennai127Karnataka122Delhi106Bangalore93Ahmedabad72Kolkata61Hyderabad48Calcutta42Pune33Chandigarh27Raipur26Rajkot25Jaipur23Lucknow15Ranchi14Cuttack14Indore12Surat11Visakhapatnam10Nagpur7Guwahati6SC6Jodhpur3Telangana3Amritsar3Varanasi3Jabalpur2Patna2Agra1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Cochin1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 26310Section 143(3)8Section 685Section 80P5Section 80P(2)(a)4Deduction3TDS3Addition to Income3Condonation of Delay

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 153/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

condone the delay subject to cost of Rs 500/- for each of the sixteen appeals totaling to Rs 8,000/- to which the ld AR has agreed and submitted his acceptance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the said sum and submit the proof thereof to the Assessing officer under intimation to the Registry

BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 160/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

condone the delay subject to cost of Rs 500/- for each of the sixteen appeals totaling to Rs 8,000/- to which the ld AR has agreed and submitted his acceptance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the said sum and submit the proof thereof to the Assessing officer under intimation to the Registry

3
Section 402
Section 40a2
Section 80P(2)(c)2

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

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

condoned. In this regard, it is to be mentioned here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 10/01/2022, passed in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020, has held that the limitation period for filing the appeal was extended upto 29/05/2022. In view of this, since

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 124 days in fling the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that it is located in a small place and its employees are not very well versed with

M/S S.B.COTGIN PVT LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 88/Nag/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Abhay N. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

condone the delay and proceed to hear this appeal on merits. We further take note of the present pandemic situation where the movement of people are restricted and because of such practical situation, it is always not possible to follow the time of limitation regarding filing of appeal before various Forums. This fact was also observed and taken cognizance

THE ISMAILIA URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1

ITA 122/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 70PSection 8Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

Section under which the deduction is claimed Rs. 1. 80P(2)(a)(i) 73,64,124 2 u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) 36,239 TOTAL Rs. 74,00,363 During the course of the Assessment proceeding, Learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 8-P with the following observation at Page No. 11/12 of the Assessment Order