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.

25 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai376Chennai313Delhi220Kolkata189Ahmedabad152Bangalore127Karnataka125Jaipur112Chandigarh96Hyderabad95Pune84Calcutta41Indore39Surat33Visakhapatnam28Nagpur25Rajkot22Guwahati19Patna19Lucknow18Amritsar17SC11Cuttack11Cochin11Telangana8Raipur6Allahabad6Agra4Rajasthan4Jabalpur3Dehradun3Orissa2Varanasi2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Panaji1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 234E37Section 143(3)31Section 6824Section 26321Section 153A12Addition to Income11TDS11Section 200A10Section 250

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

PRAKASH SHESHRAO WANKHEDE,KORADI KAMPTEE, NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 271D7
Unexplained Cash Credit7
Search & Seizure6
ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 54F

section 54F was not given without appreciating the fact that the construction was carried out by local contractor & as assessee was staying in small village with no knowledge about the storage of bills. vouchers etc. & there was no requirement for clearance of pollution etc. The lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and further erred

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

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 Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trust

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

92(Bom)(HC) g. CIT vs. NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292(Bom) (HC) 9 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur The ld. AR of appellant further submitted that each of the query of the AO was replied, which is on record and not denied by the Ld. PCIT. The ld. AR of appellant further submitted that even

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 217/NAG/2019[2015-16 Q2-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 210/NAG/2019[2013-14 Q3-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 214/NAG/2019[2014-15 Q-3-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 215/NAG/2019[2014-15 Q-4 - 26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 216/NAG/2019[2015-16 Q1-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S RAJYAS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 208/NAG/2019[214-15 (Q-4(26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 209/NAG/2019[2013-14-Q2-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 211/NAG/2019[2013-14 Q4-(26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 212/NAG/2019[2014-15 Q1-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

ITA 213/NAG/2019[2014-15 Q2-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

Section 234E

92-95 371/NAG/2019 M/s. Maharashtra ACIT, 2015-16 Q1 24Q To Panchayat Samiti, CPC-TDS, 2015-16 Q2 24Q 374/NAG/2019 Bhandara – 441904 Ghaziabad 2015-16 Q3 24Q 2015-16 Q4 24Q TAN: NGPMO3909D 96-99 376/NAG/2019 M/s. Shree Omtee ACIT, 2013-14 Q4 24Q To Steel Pvt. Ltd., CPC-TDS, 2013-14 Q4 26Q 379/NAG/2019 Plot No.C-4, MIDC, Ghaziabad

ABID MUSTAFA KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

92,20,000/-whereas the addition made is only ₹46,95,000/-. The inconsistency renders the reassessment proceedings untenable and arbitrary. 04. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without furnishing the copy of approval granted by the specified authority (Principal Chief Commissioner

M/S S.B.COTGIN PVT LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 88/Nag/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Abhay N. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

condone the delay and proceed to hear this appeal on merits. We further take note of the present pandemic situation where the movement of people are restricted and because of such practical situation, it is always not possible to follow the time of limitation regarding filing of appeal before various Forums. This fact was also observed and taken cognizance

RAJURA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,CHANDRAPUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, CHANDRAPUR

ITA 483/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 80P

condone the delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a resident AOP (Association of Persons), engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and assessed to tax. For the assessment year 2016-17, the return of income was filed

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139Section 2(14)Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

condonation of delay is thus unjustified and unwarranted. 4. Order imposing penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law in the absence of any satisfaction in the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee. 5. In levy of penalty u/s 271D on amount of Rs.6,51,000/- includes Rs.6,00,000/- paid by cheque

DR AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WORK,NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Shraddha BavdekarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

92 (Mad).\nWherein the above two contradictory decisions were considered and it was\nheld that section 234E is the substantive provision and late filing fee could be\nlevied without any further provisions in section 200A. (The decision is in favor\nof Revenue)\n2. There is a settled law that where there is a difference of opinion between\ndifferent High Courts

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

ITA 114/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year