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.

271 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 148(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai730Mumbai716Delhi505Kolkata463Ahmedabad363Bangalore280Hyderabad279Pune271Jaipur264Surat229Indore148Karnataka141Chandigarh138Visakhapatnam132Cochin128Amritsar110Rajkot91Lucknow89Patna79Nagpur57Raipur52Panaji44Calcutta44Cuttack42Agra33Jabalpur31Guwahati25Allahabad22Dehradun15Varanasi14SC9Jodhpur8Telangana8Ranchi7Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 148149Section 147107Addition to Income74Section 25059Section 14440Section 142(1)34Section 271(1)(c)32Cash Deposit29Penalty

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

Showing 1–20 of 271 · Page 1 of 14

...
28
Condonation of Delay28
Section 6827
Section 13226

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

ITA 1110/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 249Section 249(2)

148 of the Act. All the other notices u/s 142(1) and reminders sent to the assessee from time to time as well as show cause letter(s) remained uncomplied by the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) therefore completed the assessment by making the total addition of 2 ITA No.1110/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 Rs.60,75,423/- u/s 144 r.w.s

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1166/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

condone the impugned delay of 835 days in filing appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. Next, comes the assessee‟s first and foremost legal issue challenging validity of the impugned reopening. A perusal of the assessment findings in assessment order dated 10.03.2014 at page 1 itself suggests that the impugned reopening had been initiated by the learned assessing authority

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 203/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 263

148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. 17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1694/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. 17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1693/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. 17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 210/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. 17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1089/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee neither requested for any adjournment nor furnished any submission. Therefore, statutory notices u/s 142(1)/reminders/show- cause notice were issued along with questionnaire and the assessee again did not make any compliance. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1092/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee neither requested for any adjournment nor furnished any submission. Therefore, statutory notices u/s 142(1)/reminders/show- cause notice were issued along with questionnaire and the assessee again did not make any compliance. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee neither requested for any adjournment nor furnished any submission. Therefore, statutory notices u/s 142(1)/reminders/show- cause notice were issued along with questionnaire and the assessee again did not make any compliance. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 440/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee neither requested for any adjournment nor furnished any submission. Therefore, statutory notices u/s 142(1)/reminders/show- cause notice were issued along with questionnaire and the assessee again did not make any compliance. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 on 16.10.2010 2 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.7,12,450/-. Subsequently, he revised his return by filing revised return

SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 804/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 8OSection 8Q

condoned, 2. The provisions of Section 8OA (5) of the Act are directory and not mandatory and therefore deduction under Section MOP cannot be denied by making the provision section 80A (5) of the Act We relied upon decision of ITAT Delhi in case of the Fibre fill Engineers Vs. CIT (2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.) wherein it was held