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.

37 results for “condonation of delay”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai214Chennai156Kolkata122Delhi86Ahmedabad67Chandigarh53Pune37Bangalore35Jaipur29Amritsar27Visakhapatnam23Cochin17Cuttack16Lucknow14Hyderabad12SC9Varanasi5Guwahati5Nagpur4Calcutta4Indore3Raipur2Dehradun2Surat2Karnataka2Panaji1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 12A37Section 143(3)33Section 1128Addition to Income27Section 80P(2)(d)26Section 10(20)24Deduction18Section 2(22)(e)16Section 132

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

ITA 609/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pamod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the impugned delay. This main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. We now advert to the assessee’s pleadings of all these years to note that its former twin appeals IT(SS)A 06 & 07/Pun/2017 raise an identical issue of 2 IT(SS)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 ITA No. 609/Pun/09 Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala correctness

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

15
Section 80P(2)(a)14
TDS10
Exemption10

KOLHAPUR MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2778/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

dividend when such was paid out of Appropriation and not charged to Profit & Loss Account. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of ₹ 2,80,000/- on account of Nominal Membership Fee and ₹ 34,300/-on account of Entrance Fee. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BHAAWANI SHANKAR GINNING FACTORY,, DHULE

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue and C

ITA 245/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend salary tax in the hands of concern. 3. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” 3. On the other hand, assessee has filed C.O. and the grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Ld AO erred

ABHIJIT DESHPANDE , PANDIT AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs. 1,02,38,142/- u/s 2(22)( e) is taxable in the hands of the assessee. The law has no sanction to it. The addition be deleted. 3 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the appeal is delayed by few days. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The balance

DEVEN SUPERCRITICALS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), , PUNE

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

ITA 239/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 14A

deem it proper to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 972 days is condoned. 5. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act in the absence of recording of satisfaction by the AO. 6. I note that

KARMAVEER BHAUSAHEB HIRAY NASHIK JILHA KRISHI AUDYOGIKSAHAKARI SANGH LTD. KRISHI BHAVAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NASHIK

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

ITA 628/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Dwarkanath UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting 80P(2)(d) deduction on the interest earned and dividend received from

SEARCE LOGISTICS ANALYTICS LLP,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

ITA 2025/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2025/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Searce Logistics Analytics Llp, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, It 06, Blue Ridge, Pune Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase-1, Hinjewadi, Pune 411027 Maharashtra Pan : Abwfs3166N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

dividend income of Rs.8,13,745/- u/s.10(34) of the Act. The impugned rectification order dated 11.05.2021 came to be passed rejecting the same. 3 Searce Logistics Analytics LLP 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with delay who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 5. Now the assessee has approached

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

condone the delay of seven days in filing appeal late before the Tribunal. We proceed to decide the issue after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction of civil contract works, developers & builders, trading in shares & scripts. The assessee for each

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

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

ITA 1367/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

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

condone the delay of seven days in filing appeal late before the Tribunal. We proceed to decide the issue after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction of civil contract works, developers & builders, trading in shares & scripts. The assessee for each

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

condone the delay of seven days in filing appeal late before the Tribunal. We proceed to decide the issue after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction of civil contract works, developers & builders, trading in shares & scripts. The assessee for each

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

condone the delay of seven days in filing appeal late before the Tribunal. We proceed to decide the issue after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction of civil contract works, developers & builders, trading in shares & scripts. The assessee for each

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

condone the delay of seven days in filing appeal late before the Tribunal. We proceed to decide the issue after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction of civil contract works, developers & builders, trading in shares & scripts. The assessee for each

MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PATHYAPUSTAK MANDAL KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 733/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 733/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Bal Bharati, Senapati Bapat Rd., Pune – 411 004 Pan: Aaaam2009A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 Pune . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mrs. J.R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2017-18 [For Short ‘Ay’] Is Assailed Against Revisionary Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 21/03/2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Pune [For Short ‘Ao’].

For Appellant: Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

dividend on investment was earned from Pune District Central Co-op. Bank [for short ‘PDCC’] being a bank and ineligible owing to law laid down by Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in the case of ‘PCIT Vs Totgar Co-op. Sale Society’ reported in 395 ITR 611. Thus the Ld. PCIT set-aside the order of assessment on this

NAGAR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co- operative Bank engaged in the business of carrying on banking business. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 for AY 2012-13 declaring the 2 ITA No.208/PUN/2024, AY 2012-13 total income of Rs.12