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.

143 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai159Pune143Mumbai131Karnataka122Bangalore120Ahmedabad104Delhi83Kolkata79Jaipur52Chandigarh45Calcutta40Hyderabad40Indore23Surat18Rajkot16Visakhapatnam14Lucknow13Cuttack12Ranchi10Jodhpur7Amritsar7Cochin6Panaji6Patna6SC6Telangana6Nagpur5Raipur4Guwahati2Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Agra1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1159Section 12A41Addition to Income29Section 271(1)(c)25Section 10(20)20Section 143(1)19Exemption17Section 139(1)16Section 250

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

Showing 1–20 of 143 · Page 1 of 8

...
15
Section 14715
Disallowance13
Penalty8

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2683/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

section 11 of the Act was denied for delay in filing form 10B. This Tribunal held in favour of the assessee holding that filing of form 10B is merely a procedural requirement and the defect is curable. The relevant finding of this Tribunal in case of Manav Seva Trust (supra) reads as under: - “3. We have considered the submissions

SUNIL RAMKRISHANA PATOLE,NASHIK vs. ITO, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

ITA 1329/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1329/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sunil Ramkrishna Patole Vs Ito, Ward 3(1) Plot No. 29, Vinchur Road, Nashik Datta Nagar, Yeola- 423401 Maharashtra Pan-Aompp1953M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

condone the delay of 125 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Further I restore the issue raised on merits relating to additions of Rs. 13,53,643/- back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order as contemplated in section

ACIT, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJIVANI [ TAKLI ] SSK LTD, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 959/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED vs. SHRI TULJABHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD, OSMANABAD

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

ITA 1022/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SHRI TULJA BHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,OSMANABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED

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

ITA 1297/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED vs. SHRI TULJABHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD, OSMANABAD

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SANJIVANI (TAKLI) SSK LTD.,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. CIT, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 988/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SHRI TULJA BHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,OSMANABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED

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

ITA 1296/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

125 STC 375 SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987 SC 1353), cited by the appellant. The CIT(A) incorrectly held that these decisions, which dealt with delays of 7 and 4 days respectively, were not applicable to the present case involving a delay of 202 days. The CIT(A) failed to properly consider the true and correct