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.

26 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 72clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai404Mumbai378Delhi302Kolkata259Bangalore185Ahmedabad159Karnataka130Hyderabad128Jaipur121Chandigarh102Pune95Visakhapatnam72Indore49Surat48Rajkot47Amritsar45Calcutta37Lucknow36Panaji33Cochin29Nagpur26Cuttack26Patna15SC14Raipur14Telangana11Guwahati8Dehradun8Jodhpur6Allahabad6Ranchi6Jabalpur5Varanasi4Agra2Orissa2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 153A37Section 143(3)34Section 6824Section 26319Addition to Income18Section 25014Condonation of Delay12Limitation/Time-bar

M/S WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 254/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.253 & 254/Nag/2018 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Western Coalfields Ltd. Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-400 001. Pan : Aaacw1578L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Milind Bhusari
Section 143(3)

condone the delay in respect of both these appeals and proceed to hear them on merits. Adjudication of grounds in appeal Memo 6. At the time of hearing through video conference, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that common grounds were raised in both the appeals i.e. whether the assessee has obligation to deduct tax at source in respect

M/S WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

9
Search & Seizure8
Section 1326
Section 143(2)6

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 253/NAG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.253 & 254/Nag/2018 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Western Coalfields Ltd. Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-400 001. Pan : Aaacw1578L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Milind Bhusari
Section 143(3)

condone the delay in respect of both these appeals and proceed to hear them on merits. Adjudication of grounds in appeal Memo 6. At the time of hearing through video conference, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that common grounds were raised in both the appeals i.e. whether the assessee has obligation to deduct tax at source in respect

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

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

condonation of delay. 43 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur 3.3 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 72 days. It is also an undisputed fact that the Hon’ble Supreme

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

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 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

M/S SANT YOGIRAJ URBAN CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 203/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri D.P. Lohiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253(5)

Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act mandates that an appeal should be admitted before ever an order is passed on the merits. Once the appeal itself is not entertained, the question of going into the merits of the matter does not arise. We, therefore, find that the order of the Tribunal deciding the appeals of the assessee

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 496/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)

Delay of 29 days in filing this appeal has already been condoned vide Para-6 above. 9. This is a case of levy of penalty of ` 7,78,502, under section 270A of the Act. 10. It is the case of the Department that the Auditor in the 3CD report for the relevant assessment year had categorically stated that admissible

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 495/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)

Delay of 29 days in filing this appeal has already been condoned vide Para-6 above. 9. This is a case of levy of penalty of ` 7,78,502, under section 270A of the Act. 10. It is the case of the Department that the Auditor in the 3CD report for the relevant assessment year had categorically stated that admissible

POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA GONDIA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, GONDIA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 263/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 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 143(3)

condoning the delay, accordingly we do so. 5. Before us, Shri Abhay Agrawal, Counsel appearing for the assessee invited our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is reproduced below for ready reference:– “5.2. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION: The appellant did not make any specific submission in this regard. However, he filed

PURUSHOTTAM NARAYANRAO JADHAO,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 103/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai
Section 148Section 250Section 44A

72,762 towards business income by applying provisions of section 44AD, which is excessive and does not correspond to the actual business income reflected as per audited books of accounts. 5. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred in making-an addition of Rs.I3,04,245 by erroneously treating the same as professional receipts whereas

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

condone the delay. Now we proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee was engaged in the activity as a contractor. Initially, for the year under consideration, the assessee did not file his return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ` 43,72

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

SHYAMKUMAR CHANDULAL SUGANDH,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

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

ITA 303/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

delay of 147 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. I now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 3 Shyamkumar Chanduulal Sugandh ITA no.303/Nag./2023 2. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is engaged in the business of brokerage and commission business of Betel Nuts (supari) as commission agent under the name and style of “M/s. Shyamkumar

VINOD SANWALDAS DHINGRA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

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

ITA 375/NAG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

72,227/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Nagpur erred in confirming addition made by the learned assessing officer under the head income from business is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2 Vinod Sanwaldas Dhingra ITA no.375/Nag./2023 4. On the facts and circumstances the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay is hereby condoned. Accordingly, we now proceed to dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee on merit. 5. Insofar as the merit of the case is concerned, the brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has made purchases from M/s. Meridian Trading Company amounting to ` 72,34,240, and from M/s. Glob Impex (India) amounting

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 108/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 109/NAG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 112/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground