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.

36 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka170Mumbai159Chennai99Delhi74Kolkata69Bangalore56Visakhapatnam40Calcutta38Pune36Jaipur32Cuttack29Raipur27Cochin24Ahmedabad23Chandigarh22Hyderabad21Varanasi13Panaji11SC10Telangana9Indore8Surat8Allahabad7Andhra Pradesh6Lucknow6Kerala4Amritsar4Rajkot4Patna3Nagpur3Guwahati3Punjab & Haryana2Agra2Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E48Addition to Income25Section 200A24Condonation of Delay22Section 25018Section 143(3)15Section 12A14Penalty14Limitation/Time-bar

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 36 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 80P11
TDS11
Natural Justice9

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 1365/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

delayed and the same has not been condoned by ld.CIT(A). 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a written note in support of contention that one more opportunity may be granted so that various details which could not filed before the lower authorities can be submitted and issues on merits can be adjudicated. The contentions made

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 1364/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

delayed and the same has not been condoned by ld.CIT(A). 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a written note in support of contention that one more opportunity may be granted so that various details which could not filed before the lower authorities can be submitted and issues on merits can be adjudicated. The contentions made

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1442/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1445/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1446/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1441/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1439/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1443/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1444/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1440/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) for the respective quarters under consideration. 11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details

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)

260/- taking taxable income at ₹ 1,82,61,540/- even though the assessment has been completed accepting NIL returned income. The appellant submits that the tax liability as computed is incorrect. The appellant prayed that the ITO be directed to delete the tax liability.” 6. Ld. AR submitted that appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC with delay

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

ITA 649/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay and take up the Cross objections for disposal on merits. A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. The first legal issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is as under: “Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act. 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

ITA 1726/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

condone the delay and take up the Cross objections for disposal on merits. A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. The first legal issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is as under: “Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act. 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NARHARI MAHARAJ MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,JALGAON vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for as per terms indicated above

ITA 1458/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1458/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs Ito, Ward Narhari Maharaj Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., 1(4), Jalgaon C/O Bhagyesh Hari Dhakane, 18, Pitashri, Gruhkul Colony, Midc, Jalgaon-425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaan6252G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawaiaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A). NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 18.98.260/- made by CPC, Bengaluru u/s 80P due to delay in filing

SAMEER ASHOK JOSHI,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

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

ITA 572/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.572/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sameer Ashok Joshi, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Raghukul Building, Nashik. Pimpalgaon (B), Tal. Niphad, Dist.- Nashik – 422209. Pan : Acxpj6376R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By : Shri M. J. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There Is Delay Of 445 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Delay Had Occurred On Account Of Wrong Advice Given By Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. J. Jasnani
Section 10Section 154

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). An affidavit from the said ITP is also filed before us. It is only on the second opinion by another Chartered Accountant, namely, Shri Sanket M. Joshi that the present appeal has been filed with the delay of 445 days. The ld. AR submitted that the delay is neither deliberate

SADULLA SYED NOORSHA SYED,NANDED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NANDED

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

ITA 167/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication by placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2795/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The facts and grounds are common in both the appeals, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. Accordingly, the appeal-wise adjudication is taken up in the following paragraphs. ITA No.2795/PUN/2016

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2796/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The facts and grounds are common in both the appeals, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. Accordingly, the appeal-wise adjudication is taken up in the following paragraphs. ITA No.2795/PUN/2016

SUDHAKAR BAJIRAO SHISODE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

ITA 2780/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhagyesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha
Section 144BSection 147Section 2Section 250Section 69CSection 80C

Delay in filing not condoned; • Disallowance under section 80C confirmed: • Addition under section 69C confirmed. 7. The impugned NFAC order does not contain any "points for determination", any discussion of the appellant's submissions or facts, nor any reasons for confirming the additions. The order is 4 Sudhakar Bajirao Shisode therefore contrary to the mandatory requirements of section