Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

381 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 9clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai2,844 Mumbai2,805 Delhi2,348 Kolkata1,466 Pune1,443 Bangalore1,317 Hyderabad948 Ahmedabad838 Jaipur706 Surat449 Chandigarh436 Nagpur381 Raipur374 Visakhapatnam325 Patna305 Indore289 Amritsar277 Lucknow266 Karnataka261 Cochin259 Rajkot235 Cuttack167 Panaji137 Agra83 Calcutta68 Guwahati65 Dehradun62 SC57 Jodhpur53 Telangana41 Allahabad34 Jabalpur31 Ranchi30 Varanasi30 Rajasthan9 Orissa7 Kerala7 Himachal Pradesh4 Punjab & Haryana3 Andhra Pradesh2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Gauhati1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1 DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 194A138 Section 201(1)114 Section 25087 Section 20181 TDS79 Condonation of Delay76 Deduction71 Limitation/Time-bar62 Section 200A

SATPUDA FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section 13(9

Showing 1–20 of 381 · Page 1 of 20

...

54

ASTAVINAYAK GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JANEPHAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

ITA 158/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh ToshniwalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 147Section 148Section 2(31)Section 249Section 249(2)

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 preferred by respondent

SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 286/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr

Section 200Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

9. The assessee submits that no hardship or prejudice will be caused to the revenue in case the application is allowed and delay is condoned however if application for condonation of delay is rejected the assesse may loose a valuable right appeal. In view of above, it is humbly submitted that liberal view be taken and application e allowed

M/S PHOENIX INFRA ESTATE INTERNATIONAL LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand dismissed in limine

ITA 161/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Purushotam SahuFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of delay are as under:– “A. Applicant has filed the above appeal on against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 12/02/2018 passed under section 263 of the Act. The present appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. The delay is of 2261 Days. Brief facts leading to the delay of filing the appeal are as under

GURPALSINGH CHANANSINGH NAGRA,AKOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

ITA 206/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. However, a cost of ` 5,000, is levied upon the assessee for the delay in filing the petition, which should be paid to the account of The Nagpur High Court Legal Service Committee. In all fairness, the learned Counsel for the assessee agreed

SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. However, a cost of ` 5,000, is levied upon the assessee for the delay in filing the petition, which should be paid to the account of The Nagpur High Court Legal Service Committee. In all fairness, the learned Counsel for the assessee agreed

CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIT (E), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/NAG/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Benjwal, CIT.Dr

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

SHRI VYANKANATH MAHARAJ SHIKSHAN SANSTHA MURTIZAPUR,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD - 2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 398/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

delay of 45 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and we proceed for adjudication. 5. Shri Dewani, learned Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order for rejection by drawing our attention to the operative part of the impugned order dated 20/03/2024, contained in Para–6 & 7, is reproduced below:– “6. The assessee furnished reply

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. During the quantum proceedings, the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the first appellate 9

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

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. During the quantum proceedings, the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the first appellate 9

BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 160/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

9 Bank of India appeals it can be condoned on the ground that it involves a question of law which goes into the root of the matter. This present appeal pertains to a question of Law. The questions of law involved here are: i) Whether the order passed by Ld. DCIT (TDS) u/s 201(1)/(1A) is barred by limitation

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 153/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

9 Bank of India appeals it can be condoned on the ground that it involves a question of law which goes into the root of the matter. This present appeal pertains to a question of Law. The questions of law involved here are: i) Whether the order passed by Ld. DCIT (TDS) u/s 201(1)/(1A) is barred by limitation

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically

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

condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically