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.

172 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 250(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,315Kolkata846Chennai747Delhi585Pune568Bangalore495Ahmedabad399Patna335Jaipur318Amritsar234Surat223Raipur221Indore194Hyderabad186Nagpur172Rajkot165Panaji147Chandigarh120Cochin106Karnataka103Lucknow99Visakhapatnam95Guwahati83Agra59Calcutta41Jabalpur39Cuttack37Allahabad29Jodhpur19Varanasi16Dehradun14Ranchi12SC4Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 250107Section 153C85Condonation of Delay61Section 143(3)53Section 194A46Section 153A43Addition to Income40TDS38Section 68

ASTAVINAYAK GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JANEPHAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

ITA 158/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh ToshniwalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 147Section 148Section 2(31)Section 249Section 249(2)

1 and 2 herein stands dismissed on the ground of delay. The present Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 5. In view of the above discussion and legal position, the delay of 607 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown

Showing 1–20 of 172 · Page 1 of 9

...
30
Exemption30
Section 201(1)28
Deduction26

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 112/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 109/NAG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 108/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 286/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr
Section 200Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2013-14. Sunilkumar Rajendra Rai vs TDS Ward, Nagpur ITA no.286/Nag./2023 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– 2. “ Grounds of Appeal Tax Effect 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay

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)

section 143(1) by the Central Processing Centre on 27/03/2019. 2. During the course of hearing, we find that there is a delay of 203 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application–cum–affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the cause of Gurpalsingh Chanansingh Nagra ITA no.206/Mum./2023 delay in filing the present

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

SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17, emanating against the assessment order dated 18/12/2018, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Circle Amravati. 2. During the course of hearing, we find that there is a delay

GIRDHARILAL MOTILAL AGRAWAL,BULDANA vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/NAG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding action of learned AO in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,48,421/-. 2 Girdharilal Motilal Agrawal 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the notice issued for levy of penalty under

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 dated 26.07.2024 was issued but not received by the assessee, as it was sent on short notice during the peak return filing period, thus depriving the assessee of a chance to present their case. 2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 dated 26.07.2024 was issued but not received by the assessee, as it was sent on short notice during the peak return filing period, thus depriving the assessee of a chance to present their case. 2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 dated 26.07.2024 was issued but not received by the assessee, as it was sent on short notice during the peak return filing period, thus depriving the assessee of a chance to present their case. 2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 dated 26.07.2024 was issued but not received by the assessee, as it was sent on short notice during the peak return filing period, thus depriving the assessee of a chance to present their case. 2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 dated 26.07.2024 was issued but not received by the assessee, as it was sent on short notice during the peak return filing period, thus depriving the assessee of a chance to present their case. 2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 dated 26.07.2024 was issued but not received by the assessee, as it was sent on short notice during the peak return filing period, thus depriving the assessee of a chance to present their case. 2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 dated 26.07.2024 was issued but not received by the assessee, as it was sent on short notice during the peak return filing period, thus depriving the assessee of a chance to present their case. 2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid

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

250. We have gone through the order and the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:– “From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has refused to condoned the delay and take on record the written statement on the ground that the period of 120 days within which the written