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.

24 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 272A(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Surat50Chennai41Ahmedabad34Visakhapatnam30Mumbai26Pune24Lucknow20Indore17Cuttack16Kolkata15Hyderabad13Cochin11Bangalore10Delhi10Panaji10Patna9Rajkot8Jaipur7Amritsar6Chandigarh6Agra3Jabalpur3Raipur3SC2Jodhpur1Ranchi1Allahabad1Guwahati1Varanasi1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A42Section 234E24Section 10(20)24Section 1124Section 270A23Section 14822Section 200A21Section 119(2)(b)20TDS14

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

ITA 1110/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 249Section 249(2)

272A(1)(d) and u/s 271AAC of income tax act. 6.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO erred in levying interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D and fee u/s 234F for default in furnishing return of income are. Ground No. 7 The Appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend, alter, delete, or raise

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Condonation of Delay13
Exemption13
Addition to Income13

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1356/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1357/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1352/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1353/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1354/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1355/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

SOU JAYEE MOHITE SP MANDAL,SATARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1378/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Rethare Bk,Tal Karad, Pune Dist. Satara – 415108 Maharashtra Pan : Aadts7345B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Joshi
Section 11(1)(d)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 253(1)

d) of the Act and thus raised demand of Rs.28,46,130/-. Thereafter, appellant filed an application on 20.12.2022 before the ld. CIT, Exemption seeking 2 condonation of delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. The ld. CIT, Exemption observed that the condonation for delay u/s.119(2)(b) is applicable to those cases where the return of income

PRATAP PUNDLIKRAO PAWAR,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL- TDS, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

D E R PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by the same Assessee Shri Pratap Pundlikrao Pawar are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 12/01/2016, emanating from assessment orders of ACIT, CPC u/s. 200A(1) of the Act for the following assessment years:- ITA No. A.Y. Quarter

PRATAP PUNDLIKRAO PAWAR,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL- TDS, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

D E R PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by the same Assessee Shri Pratap Pundlikrao Pawar are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 12/01/2016, emanating from assessment orders of ACIT, CPC u/s. 200A(1) of the Act for the following assessment years:- ITA No. A.Y. Quarter

PRATAP PUNDLIKRAO PAWAR,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL- TDS, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

D E R PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by the same Assessee Shri Pratap Pundlikrao Pawar are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 12/01/2016, emanating from assessment orders of ACIT, CPC u/s. 200A(1) of the Act for the following assessment years:- ITA No. A.Y. Quarter

ADESH TULSHIRAM MHATRE,DISTRICT RAIGAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

ITA 2385/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GundherFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 206CSection 234ASection 270ASection 69Section 69C

Section 270A, 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all notices relating to the income tax proceedings were issued solely through ITBA

RAJRSHI SHAHU NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT KURUNDWAD,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/PUN/2025[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

272A(1)(d) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 930 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. From going through the averments made in the condonation application, I 2 Rajrshi Shahu

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