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.

175 results for “condonation of delay”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai612Mumbai412Delhi377Kolkata272Bangalore246Pune175Hyderabad171Karnataka160Ahmedabad127Chandigarh91Jaipur89Patna68Amritsar44Cuttack36Nagpur34Visakhapatnam31Surat28Cochin27Indore24Rajkot20Lucknow20Raipur18Guwahati14SC13Dehradun13Telangana7Allahabad6Varanasi6Agra5Ranchi5Kerala4Calcutta3Jabalpur3Panaji1Orissa1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E174Condonation of Delay38Limitation/Time-bar35TDS35Section 12A32Section 200A29Section 200A(1)29Section 143(3)23Bogus Purchases

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 175 · Page 1 of 9

...
23
Section 271(1)(c)21
Section 10(20)20
Section 1120

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 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

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 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

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

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

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SUDHAKAR DEVAPPA MANARE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1223/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1322/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR

Block No.34A, Sahwas, Industrial Estate, Ichalkaranji – 416 115 …. ""यथ" / Respondent PAN : AAZPM7738C अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR घोषणा क" तारीख / सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2018 Date of Hearing : 05.01.2018 आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals

SUDHAKAR DEVAPPA MANERE,,ICHALKARANJI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1322/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1322/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR

Block No.34A, Sahwas, Industrial Estate, Ichalkaranji – 416 115 …. ""यथ" / Respondent PAN : AAZPM7738C अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR घोषणा क" तारीख / सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2018 Date of Hearing : 05.01.2018 आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

ITA 682/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

delay is condoned and the Cross Objection is admitted for adjudication. 5. Cross Objections raised by the assessee are extracted as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that addition made w.r.t. of Georai Land is without any incriminating material found during the course of search

SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 699/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

delay is condoned and the Cross Objection is admitted for adjudication. 5. Cross Objections raised by the assessee are extracted as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that addition made w.r.t. of Georai Land is without any incriminating material found during the course of search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

ITA 681/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

delay is condoned and the Cross Objection is admitted for adjudication. 5. Cross Objections raised by the assessee are extracted as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that addition made w.r.t. of Georai Land is without any incriminating material found during the course of search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRADDHA CONSTRUCTIONS & POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 461/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 132Section 132(4)

block period and there cannot be such estoppel against the statute. It, therefore, follows that if the assessee commits a patent mistake of fact or law while filing his return of undisclosed income under section 158BC, he cannot be assessed on such incorrect income merely on the basis of admission made in the return. 13. . . . . . . . .In such circumstances, when

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1365/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 132Section 153A

block assessment as provided in Ss. 153A to 153C the authority before ordering the extreme step of search action u/s 132 was required to be satisfied about the existence of reasons for eventuality catalogued in Cl. (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1363/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 132Section 153A

block assessment as provided in Ss. 153A to 153C the authority before ordering the extreme step of search action u/s 132 was required to be satisfied about the existence of reasons for eventuality catalogued in Cl. (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1364/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 132Section 153A

block assessment as provided in Ss. 153A to 153C the authority before ordering the extreme step of search action u/s 132 was required to be satisfied about the existence of reasons for eventuality catalogued in Cl. (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1366/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 132Section 153A

block assessment as provided in Ss. 153A to 153C the authority before ordering the extreme step of search action u/s 132 was required to be satisfied about the existence of reasons for eventuality catalogued in Cl. (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person