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.

39 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai561Mumbai464Delhi405Kolkata371Hyderabad231Ahmedabad228Jaipur190Bangalore166Pune150Karnataka128Surat94Amritsar86Chandigarh78Indore72Rajkot51Visakhapatnam45Lucknow41Calcutta40Cuttack39Nagpur39Patna29Raipur29Cochin20Kerala18Allahabad15SC13Dehradun13Jodhpur12Telangana11Agra10Guwahati10Varanasi9Jabalpur9Panaji6Orissa5Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 153A38Addition to Income37Section 143(3)35Section 6830Section 26330Section 25022Section 6918Condonation of Delay16

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

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

Section 43B12
Limitation/Time-bar11
Unexplained Cash Credit6

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

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

SUDAM KISANRAO WANI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69

section 144 of the Act and made addition of fixed deposits as unexplained investments u/sec 69 of the Act Rs.20,03,100/- and similarly interest income of Rs.1,25,251/- under the income from other sources and assessed the total income of Rs.24,51,811/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 15/01/2024. Aggrieved

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

PARVEZ SHEIKH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 253/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250

Section 250 of the Act was uploaded on the Income Tax Portal on 20.02.2024. That the due date for filing Appeal was within 60 days from receipt of the aforesaid order i.e. 20.04.2024. C. That the Appellant has filed appeal on 18 April 2025. Thus, there has been a delay of 363 days in filing the Appeal by the Appellant

VANDANA RAJENDRA THOTE,AMRAVATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 5, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 318/NAG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Darshana Bhaiya, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 69

delay is condoned. Vandana Rajendra Thote ITA no.318/Nag./2025 3. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court observe that the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 25/01/2024, passed under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), ultimately made the addition of Rs.5,70,380, being purchase price of the rural

MOONLIGHT STUDIO,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 287/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 154

delay in filing the return is condoned by the Hon. PCCIT, the Appellant would be entitled/allowed to carry forward the Business loss of Rs. 13,69,203/- to subsequent year. 6.0. In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED.” 4. The learned Authorised Representative, Shri Rajesh Loya, appearing for the assessee reiterated the same facts which he made before the authorities

SUNIL BHAIYAJI MALEWAR,BHANDARA vs. ITO WARD -2, BHANDARA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 257/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69

section 69 of the Act. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however of no avail, 2 Mr. Sunil Bhaiyaji Malewar as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the same in limine for want of limitation/delay of two months and ten day, in filing of 1st appeal. 4. The Assessee before this

MADHUR LAXMAN GADIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

69 of the Act and taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO is justified in addition of Rs. 9,01,000/- being difference between value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority and the amount paid by the assessee is hereby added

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(d)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. The sole issue for our adjudication relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchases. 4. Facts in Brief:– In this case, during the year, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading

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

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 223/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

69,63.650 allegedly representing unaccounted cash payments which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,02,23,236 representing disallowance of depreciation on purchase of assets

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

ITA 220/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

69,63.650 allegedly representing unaccounted cash payments which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,02,23,236 representing disallowance of depreciation on purchase of assets

OMPRAKASH SHANKARLAL SHARMA,DARYAPUR vs. D.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

delay is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds:– 2 Shri Omprakash Shankarlal Sharma ITA no.156/Nag./2025 “1. THAT considering the fact of the case, the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,14,659/- presuming the deposited in bank is out of kerosene sale and recovery and treating the same as unexplained investments

RAMENDRA SINGH PARIHAR,NAGPUR vs. NGP-W-(2)(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royramendra Singh Parihar, Ito, Ward-2(2), Nagpur. Flat No. Sa 1 & 16, Rewati Vs Apartment, Amravati Road, Opp. Gurudwara Wadi, Nagpur-440023 Pan : Anhpp 2294 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Veena Agrawal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Veena Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 25.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 423 days in filing the instant appeal. Assessee has filed an application

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

LEENA ASHOK ZOPE,AKOLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,AKOLA, AKOLA

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a senior citizen and has not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2018–19.The Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property in the F.Y. 2017–18 and the purchase consideration is being below