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.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 275(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka102Mumbai65Chandigarh61Ahmedabad54Delhi54Jaipur52Chennai43Kolkata40Hyderabad34Bangalore32Surat25Cuttack13Nagpur13Lucknow10Pune9Indore7Cochin7Patna4Visakhapatnam3Panaji3Rajkot2Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Agra1Raipur1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271E13Section 143(3)11Section 80P(2)(d)10Section 12A(1)(ac)8Section 2646Section 2504Section 1474Addition to Income4Condonation of Delay

SANGALI DIVISION TELECOM WORKERS COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD 1, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 275/PUN/2024[AY.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Amol KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 4 ITA.Nos.275 &276/PUN./2024 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

SANGLI DIVISION TELECOM WORKERS COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. SANGLI,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

4
Section 271(1)(c)3
Penalty3
Disallowance3
ITA 276/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Amol KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 4 ITA.Nos.275 &276/PUN./2024 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 811/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 250Section 264

section 253 of the Act. Assessee only took a alternate remedy to again make the proceedings u/s.250 of the Act alive and filed the appeal against the order u/s.250 of the Act passed by ld.CIT(A) on 24.04.2024 before this Tribunal with a delay of 268 days. Grievance of the assessee before this Tribunal is that ld.CIT(A) ought

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

2. The assessee has filed both the appeals with a delay of 275 days. The assessee has filed an application along with a sworn affidavit of the Trustee and the Tax Consultant seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal(s) stating therein the reasons for delay as under : “I hereby state that the CIT(E), Pune rejected

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI ,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

2. The assessee has filed both the appeals with a delay of 275 days. The assessee has filed an application along with a sworn affidavit of the Trustee and the Tax Consultant seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal(s) stating therein the reasons for delay as under : “I hereby state that the CIT(E), Pune rejected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE , PUNE vs. TIETO INDIA P LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 425/PUN/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

2 ITA No.425/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2010-11 are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 80 days are condoned. 3. The appellant-revenue raised three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in deleting the penalty levied

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee M/s. Adhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd.) is a company engaged in trading of drip material and onions. It filed its return of income on 31.01.2013 declaring

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGOAN vs. SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

275(1)(c) expired on 29.02.2022 and hence, the penalty order u/s 271E passed on 12.03.2022 is barred by limitation.” 4. The assessee has filed the cross objection with a delay of 03 days. After hearing both the sides, we condone the said delay. 5. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2016-17, he filed

SHAILESH PADMAKAR PUNTAMBEKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 693/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshalishailesh Padmakar Puntambekar Acit, Circle - 11 29, Renuka Kalarang Society Pune Vs. Patwardhan Baug Erandwane, Pune 411004 Pan –Abqpp4962M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Mrs. J.R. Chandekar Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)-1, Pune’S Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-1/10559/2016-17 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

For Appellant: Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has raised the following sole substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition made