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.

27 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 139(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai757Mumbai509Delhi493Kolkata428Bangalore341Jaipur238Hyderabad222Pune216Ahmedabad211Chandigarh132Karnataka129Indore99Surat86Cochin82Lucknow71Visakhapatnam51Calcutta40Raipur38Rajkot34Amritsar28Nagpur27Patna26Cuttack26Guwahati23Jodhpur17Agra16Panaji15Jabalpur12Allahabad11SC10Dehradun8Telangana6Varanasi3Ranchi2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)33Section 6829Section 1121Addition to Income18Section 153A13Section 143(1)12Section 25011Exemption11Section 154

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

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 909
Condonation of Delay8
Unexplained Cash Credit7

SHRI PANCMURTI EDUCATION SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(5), NAGPUR

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

ITA 488/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Adiba H. ChimthanawalaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 11Section 12ASection 50A

condone the delay in furnishing the auditor's report and accept the same at a belated stage. It has been clarified that the exemption available to the trust under section 11 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report. The word <169>shall<170> occurring in section 12A cannot, under the circumstances

AKSHAY DEVIDAS TAJANE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD -1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

ITA 161/NAG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

delay in filing Denial of relief u/s 90 2. 253 Form no.67, should have been at ` 1,94,852 condoned. 2 Shri Akshay Devidas Tajane ITA no.161/Nag./2025 The CPC/Addl. JCIT(A)–1, Guru– gram is not justified in denying Denial of relief u/s 90 3. 253 the relief under section 90, at ` 1,94,852 without giving any reason

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 119/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 117/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 115/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 116/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 113/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 114/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIT (E), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/NAG/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Benjwal, CIT.Dr
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

1) of section 12A of the Act, up to 30/09/2023. Thus, no further extension of time has been granted for application under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act vide the said Circular dated 24/05/2023. 8. From the above, it is evident that the present application filed in Form No.10AB under clause

HARIOM BIOTECH AGRI FARMING,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, CPC BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 300/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 2

delay condoned by the Administrative Commissioner.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that there is an error in filing the return of income of not mentioning same figure again in the Schedule El. The said error is apparent on the face of the ITR filed by the assessee

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

SWARGIY GOPALRAO GAWANDE BAHUUDESHIY SANSTHA BHIDI,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 457/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 139Section 147Section 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 274

139(4A) for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) is "if the total income in respect of which assessee is assessable as representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this act without giving effect to provisions of section 11 & 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. . Considering

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay is hereby condoned. Accordingly, we now proceed to dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee on merit. 5. Insofar as the merit of the case is concerned, the brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has made purchases from M/s. Meridian Trading Company amounting to ` 72,34,240, and from M/s. Glob Impex (India) amounting

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139Section 2(14)Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

condonation of delay is thus unjustified and unwarranted. 4. Order imposing penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law in the absence of any satisfaction in the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee. 5. In levy of penalty u/s 271D on amount of Rs.6,51,000/- includes Rs.6,00,000/- paid by cheque

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

TUSHAR SHANKAR SHINDE,AKOLA vs. ITO,WARD-3, AKOLA

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

ITA 38/NAG/2024[19-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika KatodaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

condonation of delay to file a revised return is not in line with section 139(5) of the Act and is bad in law. 5. The Ld. JCIT (A) erred in uplifting the true essence of vital facts of the appeal (Annexure B attached herewith) and decided the case on the basis of residual rights, ought to have been first

SHRI PANDURANG SANSTHAN DEULGAON MALI,MEHKAR vs. ITO WARD-2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Pandurang Sansthan Ito (Exemption), Deulgaon Mali At Post Deulgaon Ward-2, Nagpur. Vs. Mahi, Mehkar-443001 Pan: Aagts 8497 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

delay is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in this case, the Assessee being a public charitable trust registered under applicable laws, filed its return of income on dated 31/03/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 32,099/- for the assessment year under consideration before the due date as per section 139

GOPAL DENESHCHANDRA TULSHAN ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

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

ITA 201/NAG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)(b)Section 40Section 50

delay in filing the appeal. Your honour is most humbly requested to consider the said condonation application sympathetically and admit the same for hearing. 1) Regarding Ground no.1 to 4:– In the assessment order A.O. has disallowed interest expenses at ` 2,03,227, under section 50(a)(ia), the break up of which is as under:– a) M/s. Kach Ghar

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(d)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. The sole issue for our adjudication relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchases. 4. Facts in Brief:– In this case, during the year, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading