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.

8 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 230clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai103Karnataka101Mumbai101Pune91Delhi77Bangalore66Jaipur48Hyderabad41Kolkata38Ahmedabad33Visakhapatnam31Cochin25Indore13Panaji11Surat11Lucknow8Nagpur8Raipur6Guwahati5Chandigarh5Dehradun5Jodhpur4Rajkot4Patna4Agra3Cuttack3SC3Calcutta2Allahabad2Amritsar2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 116Limitation/Time-bar6Section 1545Section 69A5Section 1475Section 1445Unexplained Money5Cash Deposit5Condonation of Delay

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 261/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

230, made by the assessee during the year 2016–17 were treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

5
Section 683
Section 234A2
Section 402
ITA 257/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

230, made by the assessee during the year 2016–17 were treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 258/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

230, made by the assessee during the year 2016–17 were treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 260/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

230, made by the assessee during the year 2016–17 were treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay

SUMEDH SOPANRAO MANWAR,WASHIM vs. ITO WARD 2 AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 259/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

230, made by the assessee during the year 2016–17 were treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act which was added 2 Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar ITA no.257 to 261/Nag./2024 to the total income of the assessee. Similar is the situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay

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

THE JAMSETJI NUSSERWANJI TATA PARSI HIGH SCHOOL TRUST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 377/NAG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 11Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

delay of two days in filing the present appeal be condoned by relying upon the following judicial pronouncements:– i) Ernst & Young Merchant banking Services LLP Vs. ADIT, ITA no.2333/Mum./2022, order dated 20/03/2023; wherein it has been held that “Without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee/proper notice for adjustment through applying section 143(1)(a), no alteration

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