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 83clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna490Mumbai410Chennai405Delhi391Kolkata287Bangalore170Hyderabad163Ahmedabad129Karnataka124Pune119Chandigarh114Jaipur108Nagpur100Indore68Surat63Rajkot53Calcutta41Lucknow39Cuttack38Cochin36Panaji36Amritsar26Raipur19Visakhapatnam13Agra13Guwahati12SC11Varanasi6Telangana5Jabalpur5Jodhpur3Allahabad3Ranchi3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 200A62Section 153A38Section 143(3)37Section 25034Section 26334Section 6827Addition to Income23Condonation of Delay

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

ITA 128/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

83,43,201, interest from Bank at ` 17,75,454, and surplus on sale of Vanamrut at ` 6,45,432. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee trust has also claimed corpus donation at ` 80,000, which was verified from receipt books. In this regard, the Assessing Officer granted opportunity to the assessee to produce the donors for verification

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5

23
Section 234E18
Deduction18
TDS17

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

ITA 129/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

83,43,201, interest from Bank at ` 17,75,454, and surplus on sale of Vanamrut at ` 6,45,432. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee trust has also claimed corpus donation at ` 80,000, which was verified from receipt books. In this regard, the Assessing Officer granted opportunity to the assessee to produce the donors for verification

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 EXEMP, NAGPUR vs. PRERNA SAMAJIK SANSKRITIK BAHUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, ARMORI, GADCHIROLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 408/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT–DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2

condonation of delay so granted before processing under section 143(1), there was no basis with the 3 ITA No. 408/Nag./2024 Prerna Samajik Sanskritik Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha CPC for rejection of claim of exemption on account of delay in filing the Form 10B and therefore, adjustment made at the time of processing of return is not sustainable and therefore

SHISHIR KUMAR DAS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-AMRAWATI, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 266/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

83,110. . Aggrieved by the order passed by the CPC, I filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 23-04-2022. 4. Thereafter Hearing notices were issued by CIT(A) and all of them went unanswered, reason being non-responsive nature of our tax consultant and I was not aware of such Nature of Tax Consultant. Subsequently Order was passed

SHISHIR KUMAR DAS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-AMRAWATI, ITO BUILDING,AMRAWATI

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

ITA 267/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

83,110. . Aggrieved by the order passed by the CPC, I filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 23-04-2022. 4. Thereafter Hearing notices were issued by CIT(A) and all of them went unanswered, reason being non-responsive nature of our tax consultant and I was not aware of such Nature of Tax Consultant. Subsequently Order was passed

SHISHIR KUMAR DAS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-AMRAWATI, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 268/NAG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

83,110. . Aggrieved by the order passed by the CPC, I filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 23-04-2022. 4. Thereafter Hearing notices were issued by CIT(A) and all of them went unanswered, reason being non-responsive nature of our tax consultant and I was not aware of such Nature of Tax Consultant. Subsequently Order was passed

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

83(SC), Court held that every loss of tax cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If two views are possible, and the AO has adopted one of those views, the order of assessment cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.  Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Gabriel India