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 263(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai423Kolkata332Delhi270Mumbai264Pune199Bangalore164Hyderabad132Karnataka114Jaipur99Chandigarh76Indore65Ahmedabad65Calcutta56Cuttack54Rajkot48Panaji41Visakhapatnam38Surat37Raipur34Cochin28Nagpur27Amritsar21Patna21Lucknow19Dehradun9SC7Varanasi7Agra6Jabalpur6Jodhpur5Telangana4Guwahati3Allahabad2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 263108Section 143(3)38Addition to Income14Condonation of Delay13Limitation/Time-bar13Section 80P(2)(d)12Section 14811Revision u/s 26311Section 69A

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

263 is quashed. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 41 42 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur 3.0 Now we take up the appeal of Shri Amit Khara (ITA No.63/NAG/2021) for adjudication. 3.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noted that there is delay of 72 days in filing the present appeal

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

8
Exemption7
Section 2505
Section 685

SUNIL VISHAMBARNATH TIWARI,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Vs. I.T.O. 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Ward 1(4), Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- Nagpur. 440015. Pan No.: Aalpt 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 30/05/2014 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Endorsing The View Taken By The A.O. Of Disallowing Claim Of The Assessee. 3. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. In This Appeal, There Is Delay Of 363 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay & The Contents Of The Same Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.DR)
Section 253(5)

condone the delay in filing the present appeal 5 ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. Brief facts of the case are that return of income for the year under consideration

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of I.T. Act 1961 considering the facts and evidence on record. 2 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 4) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 331 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. While going through

PRAMOD AGRAWAL ,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal 2 & 3 are dismissed

ITA 43/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sh. Pramod Agrawal (Huf) Pr. Cit-2, 301, Sai Ankur Apartments Nagpur-440 001 Ramdaspeth Vs. Nagpur-440 010 Pan:Aaihp 2699N (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and reopened u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) on the reason that, the assessee has claimed LTCG exemption under section 10 in ITR in respect of Capital

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

263. The deponent/assessee company has approached to new counsel on 19/02/2025 and as per advise of new counsel deponent/assessee is filing this appeal on 22/02/2025 alongwith delay of 294 days which may kindly be condoned. The delay be kindly condoned in the interest of justice as appeal be heard and decided on merits. 7. However due to above reason

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 9. We find that assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) was completed on 21.12.2018. in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded that notices under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee and that such notices were replied by assessee with details

M/S PHOENIX INFRA ESTATE INTERNATIONAL LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand dismissed in limine

ITA 161/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Purushotam SahuFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of delay are as under:– “A. Applicant has filed the above appeal on against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 12/02/2018 passed under section 263 of the Act. The present appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. The delay is of 2261 Days. Brief facts leading to the delay of filing the appeal are as under: 1

VASUNDHARA BAHUUDESHIYA SAMAJIKK SANSTHA,KHAMGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 55/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 253(5)Section 263

1. Whether the revision order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT by taking a recourse to Section 263 is illegal and bad in law, when the A.O. has made sufficient enquiries during the assessment procedure. 2. Whether the revision order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT, without considering appellant’s submission is illegal and bad in law. 3. Whether the revision order

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves

SAGAR FIBRES PVT. LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 57/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

1. Whether the revision order passed by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax by taking a recourse to section 263 is illegal and bad in law. Sagar Fibers Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.57/Nag./2021 2. Whether the revision order passed by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax invoking explanation 2(b) of Section 263, is illegal

DR. PANJABRAO DESHMUKH KRISHI VIDYAPEETH KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,AKOLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , NAGPUR

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 222/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Nag/2018 आयकर धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth Karmchari Sahakari Path Sanstha Akola. (Maharashtra) Pan : Aaaad 3455 D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri P.K. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nagpur [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 31/03/2018 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Dived Out Of Regular Assessment Order Dt. 10/08/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-1, Akola [For Shot “Ao”], The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri P.K. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80P

section 263 for no valid justification. 5. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Before hauling the facts out of the case, at the outset, it is brought to the notice of the bench that, the present appeal is delayed by eighty four (84) days, and the learned counsel for the assessee

MOHD. SHAFI NAUSHAHI ,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX -IV , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, The Commissioner Of Plot No.194, Shahai Manzil, Vs Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur. Gumgaon Road, Dongaragaon, Nagpur. Pan: Adgpn2947L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 /11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

1. The learned CIT has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in wrongly assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that, the learned AO had examined the Assessee's claim of gain on sale of rural agricultural land of Rs. 12,50,000 being exempt from

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Advocate Smt. Shruti Joshi, for delay of about 35 days to be condoned. The assessee

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Advocate Smt. Shruti Joshi, for delay of about 35 days to be condoned. The assessee

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

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

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

263 (SC); Lowry v. Consolidated African Selection Trust 8 ITR Suppl 88). However, it is only because of the deeming fiction provided in such sections i.e. section 68 or 56(2)(viib) that in certain circumstances the amount received as capital can be deemed to be income. However, section 68 and 56(2)(viib) being the deeming provisions were created

DATTU SAMPAT VANKHEDE,NAGPUR vs. PCIT-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Dilip LohiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which confers power on the CIT to revise an assessment order not on the recommendation of the AO and all the issues of sale of two Agriculture land exempted transaction were discussed and considered at the time of reassessment u/S 147 on the basis of initially formed the reason to believe

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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the following grounds of appeal on record. “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT has erred in coming to the conclusion that assessment order passed by learned AO 2 A.Y.2015-16 u/s 143(3) dated

M/S SANJAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES,,PARATWADA vs. TH PRINCIPAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 46/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

delay of 289 days is condoned. 2 ITA No.46/NAG/2016, A.Y. 2010-11 3. The assessee filed an application dated 11-11-2022 seeking permission to withdraw the present appeal. The relevant extract of the application reads as under : “With all humbleness and if your kindness permit, we do not wish to press this appeal. The present appeal was filed against