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.

21 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 202clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai141Karnataka126Chennai85Kolkata69Nagpur59Delhi35Visakhapatnam31Bangalore22Hyderabad22Pune21Jaipur19Rajkot19Surat19Ahmedabad14Panaji11Chandigarh7Dehradun7Indore5Varanasi5Lucknow4Jodhpur4Telangana3SC3Patna2Cochin2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Raipur1Rajasthan1Calcutta1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 12A46Section 10(20)24Section 1124Section 143(3)17Addition to Income12Section 234E9TDS9Exemption9Section 2638

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 249(3) which states 3 "The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.” 4.2.2 For condonation of delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, the assessee has to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) by explaining the sufficient

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Section 200A6
Section 1926
Limitation/Time-bar5

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2325/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 249 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of Sales and Purchase of Food grains oil seeds under the name & style “Jare Traders

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

Section 249 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of Sales and Purchase of Food grains oil seeds under the name & style “Jare Traders

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 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 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 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 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

CHAITNYA PRATISHTAN,ICHALKARANJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 151/PUN/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

202 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved separate condonation applications for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavits have been filed along with the applications stating therein the reason for the said delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted a brief written synopsis of the case inter alia stating the reason

CHAITNYA PRATISHTAN,ICHALKARANJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 152/PUN/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

202 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved separate condonation applications for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavits have been filed along with the applications stating therein the reason for the said delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted a brief written synopsis of the case inter alia stating the reason

PRADNYASHRAMAN DIGAMBAR JAINACHARYA DEVNANDI TRUST, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 678/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.678/Pun/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

202 A, Megdhoot Shopping Centre, Opp. CBS Shivaji Road, Dist. Nashik 422201 Maharashtra PAN : AADTP1675R Appellant Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Ranjan Date of hearing : 04.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 03.03.2023 framed by ld.CIT (Exemption

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1928/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

202, Pride Icon, Mundhwa Bypass, Kharadi, Pin -411 014 PAN : AAICA0729 M ...... artftaFff / Appellant / V/s. ACIT, CPC-(TDS),Ghaziabad ..... tRTsff / Respondent Dhiraj S Dandgaval Assessee by Shri S. P. Walimbe Revenue by tfl'Otsl / Date of Hearing : 08.06.2022 W f l cilOy / Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 3TT&T / O R D E R PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1929/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

202, Pride Icon, Mundhwa Bypass, Kharadi, Pin -411 014 PAN : AAICA0729 M ...... artftaFff / Appellant / V/s. ACIT, CPC-(TDS),Ghaziabad ..... tRTsff / Respondent Dhiraj S Dandgaval Assessee by Shri S. P. Walimbe Revenue by tfl'Otsl / Date of Hearing : 08.06.2022 W f l cilOy / Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 3TT&T / O R D E R PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1930/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

202, Pride Icon, Mundhwa Bypass, Kharadi, Pin -411 014 PAN : AAICA0729 M ...... artftaFff / Appellant / V/s. ACIT, CPC-(TDS),Ghaziabad ..... tRTsff / Respondent Dhiraj S Dandgaval Assessee by Shri S. P. Walimbe Revenue by tfl'Otsl / Date of Hearing : 08.06.2022 W f l cilOy / Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 3TT&T / O R D E R PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These

SRI PROJECTS,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1757/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 50

202, Saileela Apartments, s Ward-2(1), Pune. Ekdant Vihar, Aundh, Pune – 411007. PAN: ABPFS4558R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Abhilash Hiran – AR Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 19/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

202. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ABFPG6929E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.02.2024 of the learned PCIT (Central), Pune passed u/sec.263 of the of the Income

DEEPAK KUNDANMAL RATHI,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -5 ,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/PUN/2020[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.525/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 144Section 147Section 148

202, Kamal Kirti, Above SBI, Opp. Pu La Deshpande Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune 411 030 PAN : ACVPR2109J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Parag Rathi Respondent by Shri S. P. Walimbe Date of hearing 29-01-2021 Date of pronouncement 29-01-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 183/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

delay in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in business of construction of commercial and residential buildings. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income Rs.1,60,62,150/-. The Assessing Officer completed

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 184/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

delay in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in business of construction of commercial and residential buildings. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income Rs.1,60,62,150/-. The Assessing Officer completed