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.

85 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2(47)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai282Chennai268Delhi222Ahmedabad144Kolkata138Chandigarh134Jaipur110Bangalore96Hyderabad87Pune85Raipur85Indore59Visakhapatnam38Lucknow30SC29Rajkot27Surat26Patna22Nagpur18Cochin13Guwahati12Cuttack10Agra9Amritsar7Jodhpur5Allahabad3Panaji3Ranchi3Jabalpur1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income48Section 143(3)44Section 12A40Section 234E36Section 25032Section 143(1)31Section 1131Section 153A27Deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 PANDHARPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE PANDHARPUR vs. YASHODA MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA , MANGALWEDHA DISTRICT SOLAPUR

ITA 2741/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

47,581/- as against the income returned by the\nassessee at Rs.Nil.\n3. In first appeal after considering the submissions of the\nassessee co-operative society, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the\nappeal filed by the assessee by relying on various decisions passed\nby a coordinate bench of this Tribunal. It is this order against\nwhich the Revenue

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

Showing 1–20 of 85 · Page 1 of 5

26
Section 143(2)25
TDS24
Limitation/Time-bar23
ITA 703/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Pune
19 Sept 2024
AY 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)

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 AO further erred in law and on facts in not treating

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

ITA 2761/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(3)

section 27(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, it deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.” In Madhu Dadha vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Hon'ble Madras High Court in their decision dated 23.6.2009 in TC (A). No. 421 of 2009 while referring to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. RAMACHANDRAN v. State

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

47,54,752/- which were far in excess of the investment made in A.N. Coffeeday. Therefore, the presumption in law arises that the investments were made out of non interest bearing funds and burden was on revenue to show that investments were made out of borrowed funds. The revenue has not discharged the aforesaid burden. Therefore

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

47,33,378/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed on 28.06.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2646/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

47,33,378/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed on 28.06.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from

SHIVDAS VENKAT GOMARE HUF,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

ITA 760/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 253

2. The Applicant has filed this application seeking the condonation of a 392-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 253 of the Act, challenging the order dated 27.12.2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC"), under Section 250 of the Act. 3. The Applicant resides in Taluka Babhalgol, District Latur

NAROTTAM ATMARAM WARDE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

Delay is condoned. Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book. The relevant paragraphs of the ld.AR’s submission are reproduced here as under : “1.4 The learned CIT(A) relied upon decisions such as CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. and other similar rulings. These authorities relate to ITAT's 2 discretionary powers and do not apply

SHRIVARDHAN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KONDIGRE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, ICHALKARANJI

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

ITA 2191/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee from time to time calling for information. In response thereto, assessee uploaded its online reply in ITBA e-Assessment module. Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) accepting the income returned by the assessee, but incorrectly computed the tax liability at ₹71,47

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1150/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(7)

condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. 2. Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory). Current Loss of Rs.9,50,99,095/- was furnished in its return of income

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1149/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(7)

condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. 2. Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory). Current Loss of Rs.9,50,99,095/- was furnished in its return of income

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1148/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(7)

condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. 2. Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory). Current Loss of Rs.9,50,99,095/- was furnished in its return of income

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1151/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(7)

condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. 2. Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory). Current Loss of Rs.9,50,99,095/- was furnished in its return of income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. KAPURBA AND COMPANY, BARSHI, SOLAPUR

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 308/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 3

condone the said delay. 5. The Revenue raised six grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in holding non-applicability of section 2(47