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.

100 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai816Mumbai713Delhi691Kolkata453Hyderabad347Pune316Ahmedabad280Bangalore258Jaipur224Karnataka148Visakhapatnam103Chandigarh101Nagpur100Surat96Indore86Raipur86Cochin79Cuttack70Amritsar63Lucknow49Calcutta48Panaji36Rajkot31Patna27SC27Jodhpur21Telangana21Guwahati16Varanasi14Allahabad12Jabalpur9Dehradun9Agra7Rajasthan5Orissa5Ranchi5Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153C87Section 200A48Section 153A37Section 143(3)37Section 6831Section 25029Addition to Income29Condonation of Delay27Deduction

VIJAY ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WD,-8(4), NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 101/NAG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Feb 2020AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Bhusari
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 271C of the Act respectively. A. Preliminary Issue - Condonation of Delay 2. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both these appeals could not be filed in time and the said appeals are filed with the delay of 979 days. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit along with condonation

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5

26
Section 4024
TDS19
Section 26318
ITA 315/NAG/2023[2013-14 (FY 2012-13, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 316/NAG/2023[2014-15 (FY2013-14, Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 308/NAG/2023[2016-17 (FY 2015-16, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 317/NAG/2023[2014-15 (FY 2013-14, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 152/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 307/NAG/2023[2014-15 (FY 2013-14, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 284/NAG/2023[2008-09 (FY 2007-08, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 153/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 150/NAG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 151/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 306/NAG/2023[2013-14 (FY 20012-13, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 314/NAG/2023[2013-14 (FY 2012-13, Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 250

40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts

GOPAL DENESHCHANDRA TULSHAN ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 201/NAG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)(b)Section 40Section 50

40(a)(ia) on the basis of, judgment of Kerala HC in the case of Prudential Logistics & Transport vrs. ITO reported in 51 taxman. com 426 (Kerala HC). Being aggrieved by the said addition of Rs.2,03,227/-, appellant has preferred the present appeal before your kind honour alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Your honour

SHRI ABHIJIT MADHUSUDAN SAPKAL,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 553/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Delay in filing and refilling special leave petition is condoned. Special leave petition is dismissed.” We are also aware that there are certain other Hon’ble High Court decisions wherein this proposition has not been upheld that provisions of section 40

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

40 days be condoned in light of aforesaid circumstances. That there was no malafide intention on assessee's part for delay in filing the appeal. In view of above it is submitted that there was a bonafide lapse in delay in filing the appeal before your Honour. Hence, there is an unintentional delay in filing the appeal before your Honour

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

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

40 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur force the AO to conduct enquiries in the manner preferred by the Principal CIT, thus prejudicing the mind of the AO, however, the intention of the legislature behind the explanation could not have been so as the same would lead to unending litigation and no finality in the legal proceedings

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)

condone the delay of 446 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Automobiles and Auto Parts. During the year under consideration, the assessee–company allotted addition 2,00,000 shares for a premium of ` 40, per share

PRAVIN MANSUKHLAL PATELIYA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 on 29.03.2014 determining total income at Rs.16,18,207. The AO passed the order u/s 144 r/w S.147 of the IT Act, 1961 and made disallowance of Rs.40,98,549/- u/s 40(a)(ia). Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is on appeal. 3.2 The appeal was filed with the delay of several