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.

126 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi946Mumbai885Chennai870Kolkata578Bangalore387Ahmedabad328Pune302Hyderabad302Jaipur281Patna209Chandigarh162Karnataka157Surat128Nagpur126Indore106Raipur105Amritsar96Rajkot85Visakhapatnam80Lucknow72Panaji62Cochin58Cuttack56Calcutta48SC37Jodhpur23Telangana22Guwahati21Agra20Varanasi17Dehradun14Allahabad10Jabalpur10Andhra Pradesh5Orissa5Ranchi4Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 194A78Section 201(1)62Condonation of Delay44Limitation/Time-bar42Exemption41Deduction41TDS41Section 25040Section 201

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)

28 are religious in nature. Also, the expenditure allocated to these religious activities has consistently exceeded 5% over the past three years. In light of this observation, it is evident that the trust does not meet the conditions outlined in clause (ii) of section 80G(5) when read in conjunction with Explanation 3 to section 80G of the Income

M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

Showing 1–20 of 126 · Page 1 of 7

39
Section 153C17
Section 201(3)12
Section 26312

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

condone the delay of 702 days in filing of the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The sole dispute involved in this appeal relates to addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) amounting to ` 2,50,00,000, allegedly held to have been received by the assessee in cash. 6. The assessee is engaged

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

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 6. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the facts are, the assessee is an Individual. For the year under consideration, on 31/01/2018, the assessee filed his return of income electronically, disclosing total income of ` 12,96,33,940. During the course of regular assessment framed under

DHARAMITRA,WARDHA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

28-10-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27-04-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2016-17. 2. I find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 16 days. Upon hearing both the parties, I find that the delay

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal 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. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trust

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

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not 44 45 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal

SHAIKH MAHMOOD SHAIKH CHANDA,ACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD-4, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 541/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshaikh Mahmood Shaikh Chanda, 4, Ward No.4, Achalpur, Pathrot -444808, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Alipc0613Q V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward–4, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Amravati-444601, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 271ASection 69

28,45,500/- to the total income of the appellant, comprising Rs.27,25,500/- being cash deposits in the bank account and Rs. 1,20,000/- being the income declared in return. The cash deposits of Rs. 27,25,500/- represent receipts from third parties in the regular course of business activity, out of which only the commission income

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

SHRI SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 26/NAG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 250Section 68

section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to press the point that when there were proceedings relating to the same matter is prosecuted in good faith and such time should be excluded while considering the limitation. We find that there was no bar to simultaneously prefer application for rectification as well as filing the appeal before the Tribunal

SUBHASHCHAND SUNDERLAL CHANKAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 33/NAG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 250Section 68

section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to press the point that when there were proceedings relating to the same matter is prosecuted in good faith and such time should be excluded while considering the limitation. We find that there was no bar to simultaneously prefer application for rectification as well as filing the appeal before the Tribunal

NIMSHASKIYA MADHYANIK SHALEY KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD.,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(d)

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether the Ld. AO and CIT(A) is correct in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,27,687/- from deduction claimed under Sec 80P as interest income on deposit nationalized

MR. UMESH POREDDIWAR,GADCHIROLI vs. I.T.O.(TDS) WARD -2, CHANDRAPUR

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

ITA 478/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Umesh Vasantrao Poreddiwar Vs. The Ito, Rampuri Ward,Gadchiroli, Distt. Ward-2, Aaykar Bhawan Gadchiroli Railway Station Road,Chandrapur Pan No.:Achpp 6517 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Veena Agarwal (Ca) Shri Abhisekh Kumar, Adv Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 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. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 19/02/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Agnes P Thomas (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 50

section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not imply a pedantic approach

GURINDERSINGH INDRAJEETSINGH NAYYAR,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

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

ITA 61/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

section 144 dated 19th March 2022. Thereafter, the assessee immediately consulted his counsel and arranged to file the appeal before learned CIT(A) on 17/08/2022. 3 Gurindersingh Indrajeetsingh Nayyar ITA no.61/Nag./2024 5. The learned AR also submitted that, during appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A), the assessee was asked to furnish his written submissions on merits. The assessee

DEESHA MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE

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

ITA 284/NAG/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil GawandeFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 10Section 12ASection 35Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

condoned by Ld. CIT (Exemptions). The Ld. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that there is no delay in provisional application filed in Form 10AB u/s 80G(5) of the Act dated 28-05-2021 which was before the commencement of activities and final registration was applied on 26-09-2023 for which necessary directions may please be given

JALSAMPDA KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 2 , WARDHA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 300/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryjalsampda Karmchari Ito, Ward-2, Wardha. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Wardha, 1, Dr. Vs. Adyalkar Bhavan, Arvi Road, Shivaji Square, Wardha-442001 Pan: Aaaaw 0478 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, Ld.CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay is condoned. 4. In this case, the Assessee is a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and providing credit facilities to its members, consisting of only employees of Irrigation department of Maharashtra State in Wardha District. The Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 01/11/2017 and declaring total income at Rs. NIL, claimed the deduction under Chapter

M/S. NEERI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay of 142 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an Employee’s Co–operative Credit Society for the employees working at National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). For the year under consideration, the assessee Society filed

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/NAG/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2012-13 Bank Of India, Dcit (Tds), Hingna Branch, Nagpur Zonal Office, Vs. Circle-1, 3Rd Floor, Csd Dept., Kingsways, Nagpur Nagpur – 440 001, Maharashtra Pan : Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal
Section 194ASection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 250

Delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned. ii. The order u/s 201(1)/(1A) is not time barred. iii. The question whether the assessee is in default in terms of section 201(1) needs to be determined in the light of Explanation to section 191. Howbeit, the cases covered u/s 197A(1A) [i.e. the eligible

BANK OF INDIA,SIHORA BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Now coming to the merits of the case, in all these appeals, the assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act. 6. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee in ITA No. 122/Nag/2022 was taken

BANK OF INDIA ,PRASHEONI BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Now coming to the merits of the case, in all these appeals, the assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act. 6. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee in ITA No. 122/Nag/2022 was taken

AMRAVATI JILHA VIMA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condonation of delay and decided appeal on merits, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,25,000/- as interest income on investments of Rs.1,75,00,000/- though the same were not received during the previous year