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.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai88Cochin40Jaipur28Pune23Karnataka21Delhi20Bangalore17Lucknow16Ahmedabad16Mumbai16Kolkata16Amritsar12Hyderabad12Indore10Visakhapatnam9Rajkot9Guwahati7Raipur4Allahabad4Patna3Jabalpur2Chandigarh1Cuttack1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271B40Section 14830Section 14725Penalty23Addition to Income18Section 14417Section 142(1)15Section 270A13Section 271A12Section 271(1)(c)

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty of Rs.39,87,280/- levied u/s 270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

10
Cash Deposit10
Limitation/Time-bar6

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty of Rs.39,87,280/- levied u/s 270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty of Rs.39,87,280/- levied u/s 270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

ITA 689/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 44AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.55,574/- u/s. 271B of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 171 days along with a condonation

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

ITA 690/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 44AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.55,574/- u/s. 271B of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 171 days along with a condonation

M/S. R.R.KAPOOR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 592/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.592/Pun/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

condoned and the instant appeal is 2 M/s. R.R. Kapoor admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2470/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose his true source of payment to contractors and sale of motor vehicle which remained unexplained. Accordingly

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MHASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PUNE

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

ITA 2469/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose his true source of payment to contractors and sale of motor vehicle which remained unexplained. Accordingly

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2472/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose his true source of payment to contractors and sale of motor vehicle which remained unexplained. Accordingly

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2473/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose his true source of payment to contractors and sale of motor vehicle which remained unexplained. Accordingly

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2471/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose his true source of payment to contractors and sale of motor vehicle which remained unexplained. Accordingly

AVINASH NARAYAN KOTGIRE,,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, NANDED

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 749/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 271B

delay of 10 days in filing of both these appeals stands condoned in light of assessee’s condonation averments date attributing reasons thereby not only to the CIT(A)’s ex-parte proceedings but also communication gap(s) at various levels. 3. Next comes the identical issue of correctness of section 271B

ANUP AVINASH KOTGIRE,,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, NANDED

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 2126/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 271B

delay of 10 days in filing of both these appeals stands condoned in light of assessee’s condonation averments date attributing reasons thereby not only to the CIT(A)’s ex-parte proceedings but also communication gap(s) at various levels. 3. Next comes the identical issue of correctness of section 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

271B and 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2012-13. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing of all the appeals except in ITA No.224/PUN/2026

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

271B and 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2012-13. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing of all the appeals except in ITA No.224/PUN/2026

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

271B and 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2012-13. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing of all the appeals except in ITA No.224/PUN/2026

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 209/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

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

271B and 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2012-13. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing of all the appeals except in ITA No.224/PUN/2026

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 210/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

271B and 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2012-13. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing of all the appeals except in ITA No.224/PUN/2026

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 211/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

271B and 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2012-13. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing of all the appeals except in ITA No.224/PUN/2026

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 219/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

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

271B and 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2012-13. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing of all the appeals except in ITA No.224/PUN/2026