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.

134 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai859Delhi749Mumbai695Kolkata377Pune328Surat264Bangalore240Hyderabad212Ahmedabad189Jaipur173Indore171Karnataka147Nagpur134Chandigarh128Raipur117Amritsar116Panaji95Cochin94Lucknow66Cuttack49Jodhpur44Visakhapatnam43Calcutta41Rajkot38SC29Patna26Varanasi20Telangana17Allahabad14Guwahati12Jabalpur9Dehradun7Rajasthan6Agra4Andhra Pradesh3Orissa3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1Ranchi1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 200A89Section 153C85Section 234E68Section 26355Section 143(3)46Section 25039Section 12A38Section 153A37Addition to Income

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

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD3(4), NAGPUR

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

Showing 1–20 of 134 · Page 1 of 7

37
Condonation of Delay29
TDS27
Limitation/Time-bar20
ITA 549/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 537/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 544/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4),NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 536/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

PAWAN SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 534/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Assessee’s appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:– 3 Pavan Sharadrao Khadse Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse Lata Sharadraoji Khadse ITA no.534, 536 544/NAG./2025 ITA no.537,549/NAG./2025 “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust, registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 in the office of Charity Commissioner, Wardha. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust, registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 in the office of Charity Commissioner, Wardha. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust, registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 in the office of Charity Commissioner, Wardha. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income

SANDHYA VITTHALRAO DABRE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 322/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Mugdha Gangane, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. CIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case it is observed that the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act mainly on the reasons that as per information shared by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur to the effect that the Assessee during the assessment year under consideration has made investment

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

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

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

ARPITA MATHEW ARUKAKKAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 501/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 151(1)

section 148 of the Act, no enquiry was done by the AO on the material available on record, which is against the provisions of law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.23,30,338 made by AO without appreciating that AO was having

RAMESH WASUDEORAO NAWSALKAR,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 746/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Bhushan Lathiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 30

condone the delay of 34 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the disallowance of registration charges at ₹ 5,47,250/- incurred by the assessee on the sale of immovable property. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

34 35 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur examined. As regards claim of bad debts and foreign exchange fluctuation the issue was duly examined by AO and we find nothing has been pointed out with regard to the allowability of the same or as to how the decision of the AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest

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)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 8. It is observed that the appellant has issued 2,00,000 shares each of face value Rs. 10/- to its existing shareholders on a premium of Rs.40/- per share. Thus, the issue price per share stands at Rs.50/-. As the appellant did not furnish any report

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

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the total incomeof the appellant, without going into the facts of the case and without giving proper opportunity of being heard in this regards. The additions confirmed are unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 7. The learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law for not justified in proceedings for confirming the addition made

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

ABID MUSTAFA KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

section 142(1) of the Act was issued and there was no proper compliance the Assessing Officer found that the explanations does not satisfy the sources of cash deposits in the bank account and was treated as unexplained cash credit u/sec 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.46,95,000/–, and passed order u/sec 147 r.w.s

SHRI PANDURANG SANSTHAN DEULGAON MALI,MEHKAR vs. ITO WARD-2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Pandurang Sansthan Ito (Exemption), Deulgaon Mali At Post Deulgaon Ward-2, Nagpur. Vs. Mahi, Mehkar-443001 Pan: Aagts 8497 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B before the Ld.CIT(Exemption), Pune dated 31/05/2021, which has subsequently been rejected vide order dated 03/12/2024. The Assessee in support of its claim also relied on various judgments, such as, CIT (Exemption) vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra [2024] 167 taxmann.com 548 (Guj. HC); and Sahaj Seva Trust vs. ITO (Exemption