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.

29 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 221clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai185Karnataka105Delhi72Mumbai53Kolkata35Bangalore31Pune29Jaipur27Cochin26Hyderabad24Ahmedabad17Lucknow17Surat14Chandigarh9Cuttack8Indore6Raipur6Guwahati5Visakhapatnam4Allahabad4Amritsar4Calcutta4Rajkot3Agra2SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1Patna1Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Penalty24Section 14723Addition to Income21Section 22112Cash Deposit12Section 14411Section 271(1)(c)11Section 271B10Section 14810Section 142(1)

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)

section 249(2). The discretion is to be exercised not on any arbitrary or fanciful grounds or whim or caprice of the first appellate authority, but it is to be a judicial discretion. The discretion is obviously to be exercised where "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within time is made out by the appellant (Cf. Mohd. Ashfaq

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

10
Limitation/Time-bar8
Section 1546

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 1, PANVEL

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

ITA 414/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

221 days in filing of all these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was uploaded in the income tax portal and was not served to the assessee in physical manner

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL

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

ITA 1435/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

221 days in filing of all these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was uploaded in the income tax portal and was not served to the assessee in physical manner

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 1, PANVEL

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

ITA 416/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

221 days in filing of all these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was uploaded in the income tax portal and was not served to the assessee in physical manner

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL

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

ITA 339/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

221 days in filing of all these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was uploaded in the income tax portal and was not served to the assessee in physical manner

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

ITA 338/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

221 days in filing of all these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was uploaded in the income tax portal and was not served to the assessee in physical manner

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

ITA 415/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

221 days in filing of all these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was uploaded in the income tax portal and was not served to the assessee in physical manner

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 10Section 147

condoning the delay. 2 ITA No.1726/PUN/2025, AY 2019-20 2.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. Reopening under Section 147 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition levied

DILIP JAWAHARLAL VARYANI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 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], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.643/PUN/2025[A] “1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee prays to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal. An affidavit explaining the rear lo delay will

ROHINI GAURISHANKAR KALYANI,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 319/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

221 D, Parvati Niwas, Vs. Yerawada Road, Kalyaninagar, Pune – 411006 PAN : ABGPK1583K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 02-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 07-05-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

SAJID DASTAGIR SAYYED,LATUR vs. WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

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

ITA 1181/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 69A

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,70,530/- U/s 69A of I.T. Act. made by the A.O. is erroneous as CIT(A) has not considered any grounds of appeal made by appellant

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1353/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 154Section 221

221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1352/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 154Section 221

221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1351/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 154Section 221

221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1350/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 154Section 221

221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1349/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 154Section 221

221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1354/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 154Section 221

221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant

SATISH MADHUKAR KANHERKAR,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO , WARD-2, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, all the 10 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

221, dated 25.07.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17 respectively. ITA Nos.211 & 224/PUN/2026 filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.07.2024 & 25.07.2024 respectively of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming penalty levied u/s 271B

SATISH MADHUKAR KANHERKAR,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO , WARD-2, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, all the 10 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 224/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

221, dated 25.07.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17 respectively. ITA Nos.211 & 224/PUN/2026 filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.07.2024 & 25.07.2024 respectively of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming penalty levied u/s 271B

SATISH MADHUKAR KANHERKAR,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO , WARD-2 , AHILYANAGAR

In the result, all the 10 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/PUN/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

221, dated 25.07.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17 respectively. ITA Nos.211 & 224/PUN/2026 filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.07.2024 & 25.07.2024 respectively of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming penalty levied u/s 271B