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.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune28Karnataka21Jaipur21Mumbai18Kolkata17Delhi17Chennai13Ahmedabad12Bangalore12Visakhapatnam7Hyderabad7Rajkot6Cochin6Nagpur5Amritsar4Agra3Surat3Indore3Raipur2Guwahati1SC1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 271D16Section 269S10Penalty5Section 2714Section 2504Section 2693Addition to Income3Condonation of Delay3Section 1472

SHRI BABURAO RAMBHAU KAPTE,CHANDRAPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDRAPUR RANGE, CHANDRAPUR

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

ITA 39/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 5. The only issue arose for our adjudication is, whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer Shri Baburao Rambhau Kapte ITA no.39/Nag./2022 levying

Limitation/Time-bar2

PANDURANG PANJABRAO TIWADE,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 60/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.60/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pandurang Panjabrao The Joint Commissioner Tiwade, V Of Income Tax, Range-2, Lonara, Gumthi, S Nagpur. Nagpur – 441111. Pan: Asjpt1392H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Aksshay Duragkar – Advocate- Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 271D Of The Act Dated 03.03.2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A]

Section 250Section 27Section 271DSection 27I

section 271D of the Act dated 03.03.2020. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A] 1. The assessee is a farmer and is having agricultural income only therefore, the assessee had not filed return of income for the relevant A.Y. The assessee had received notice u/ s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 issued

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

GITANJALI CHAITANYA GURAM,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 269SSection 271D

condone the delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. While going through the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that there was a delay in filing the first appellate appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the assessee has explained the said delay. By considering

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 276/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

delay of 57 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 27/12/2019 u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs.36,13,000/- on account of difference between the consideration shown by the Assessee