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.

61 results for “condonation of delay”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai623Mumbai423Delhi385Kolkata278Bangalore252Karnataka160Hyderabad153Ahmedabad102Chandigarh90Jaipur79Patna67Pune61Amritsar42Nagpur34Cuttack31Surat29Indore22Lucknow21Rajkot21Visakhapatnam19Raipur18Guwahati14Dehradun13SC13Ranchi7Telangana7Cochin7Varanasi6Allahabad6Agra4Kerala4Jabalpur3Calcutta3Panaji1Orissa1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A40Section 143(3)36Section 1133Section 26327Section 10(20)24Deduction24Section 80P22Addition to Income22Section 143(1)

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

ITA 703/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

Assessing Officer (AO) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing of Form 10B and instead observing that Form 10B has not been filed at all. 2. The learned AO further erred in law and on facts in treating an amount of Rs.32,91,450/- as income chargeable u/s 11(1B). 3. The learned

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4

21
Section 271(1)(c)21
Disallowance15
Exemption12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

SHRI MARTAND DEOSANSTHAN JEJURI,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 593/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Block, New Delhi the 22nd May, 2019 Subject: Condonation of delay in filing of Form no. 10B for years prior to AY 2018-19-reg. 5 ITA No.593/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18 Under the provisions of section 12A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') where the total income of a trust or institution as computed under the Act without giving

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

condone the delay in filing Form No.10-IC is with ld.CCIT and ld.Pr.CIT. Findings & Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, vide order u/sec.143(1), Assessee’s claim for benefit of ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] lower tax as per section 115BBA was denied on the ground that Form No.10-IC was not filed electronically

VTP FOODS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (3), PUNE

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

ITA 2878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)

blocked it. So, it has not brought any material which could prove that the Assessing Officer made the addition on conjecture and surmises. It has shown loss from agricultural activities but it was depositing huge money in the bank account on a single day. From perusal of the relevant paras of the Assessment Order, it is found that the assessee

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

SIDDHESHWAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 760/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234Section 43B

Block, MIDC, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. PAN : AAGCS4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date of hearing 09.03.2022 : Date of pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short

P.K.D.N.N. HUTATMA KISAN AHIR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1885/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

condone the impugned delay of 515 days for assessment year 2013-14 and 71 days for assessment year 2015-16, respectively in filing appeals as neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. The assessee pleads the following identical substantive grounds in both these appeals:- 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

P.K.D.N.N. HUTATMA KISAN AHIR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2,, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1884/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

condone the impugned delay of 515 days for assessment year 2013-14 and 71 days for assessment year 2015-16, respectively in filing appeals as neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. The assessee pleads the following identical substantive grounds in both these appeals:- 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SIGMALON EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10, PUNE

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

ITA 603/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.603/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Block, Pune MIDC, Pimpri, Pune-411 501 Maharashtra PAN : AAACK2078B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 02.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 06.05.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 31.10.2023 for the assessment

VISHNU GANPAT GAIKWAD,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

ITA 2138/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2138/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Ivanna Hazel SoansFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 10(37)Section 147

Assessment Order dated 14.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 rr.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 258 days in filing the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and relevant part of the application reads as under : “8. It is also pertinent to mention that a substantial portion

JAYA HIND MECHANICS LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)3 , BENGALURE

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

ITA 621/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pawan JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 154(4)Section 156Section 245Section 250

Assessment Year : 2020-21 Jay Hind Mechanics Limited, Vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-3, D1 Block, Plot 18/1, Bengaluru MIDC, Chinchwad, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune 411 019, Maharashtra PAN : AAACK9718J Assessee Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pawan Jain Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal

M/S JYOTI SOLUTIONWORKS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2317/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2317/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

Block 102, MIDC Bhosari, Bhosari I.E. S.O., Pune 411026, Maharashtra PAN : AABCJ0011A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Revenue by : Date of hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. SOLAPUR NAGARI AUDYOGIK SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 908/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 143(3)

delay of 24 days is condoned. 3. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to hear the ld. DR and pass order basing on the material available on record. 4. We find the issues raised in both the appeals are similar