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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Chennai961Mumbai732Delhi731Kolkata465Bangalore299Jaipur287Hyderabad240Ahmedabad222Pune219Indore212Chandigarh187Karnataka152Amritsar128Surat104Raipur98Nagpur90Lucknow80Visakhapatnam77Cuttack65Panaji53Cochin46Calcutta45Rajkot40Patna29SC25Guwahati25Telangana21Allahabad19Varanasi18Jodhpur17Agra13Dehradun7Orissa6Jabalpur6Kerala5Rajasthan5Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58Deduction56Section 80P55Section 143(1)41Section 80P(2)(a)41Section 25040Section 143(3)40Disallowance35Section 234E

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited on 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a), has used the expression `indicated in the audit report’. The word `indicated’ is wider in amplitude than the word `reported’, which envelopes both the direct and indirect reporting. Even if there is some indication

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

Showing 1–20 of 219 · Page 1 of 11

...
30
Section 36(1)(va)29
Section 12A29
Limitation/Time-bar16

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

36(1)(iii) of the Act, disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, disallowance of business promotion expenses. Apart from these disallowances the Assessing Officer considered even the suomoto adjustments i.e., the disallowance of ₹.4.0572 crores as made by the assessee in its revised return of income for disallowance while computing the income by the Assessing Officer. This shows the Assessing

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)

36(1)(viia) of the Act; (ii) Rs.1,50,000/- on account of provision made for standard assets; (iii) Rs.3,86,539/- on account of unclaimed dividend; (iv) Rs.2,80,000/- on account of nominal membership fee and (v) Rs.34,300/- on account of entrance fee, totaling to Rs.31,50,839/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before

KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

ITA 946/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 253(1)

condoning the delay when there was sufficient cause. 2. The ld AO erred in law and on fact in making addition of Rs 19,77,900/- as salary income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 4. Without touching grounds & merits of the case, we have heard

M/S LOKMANGAL MAULI INDUSTRIES LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE -1, , SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 96/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1 )(va) of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01/04/2021 and hence not applicable to the Assessment year 2017- 18. The appellant hereby prays that the disallowance of Rs. 14,83,912/- may please be deleted. 3. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground/s of appeal.” 2. Admittedly

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

ITA 2647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22,14,956/- to Rs.6,00,43,067/- and the assessee should have shown the difference of opening and closing inventory of traded goods in Profit and Loss Account. However, the effect of change in inventory on this account

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 2646/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22,14,956/- to Rs.6,00,43,067/- and the assessee should have shown the difference of opening and closing inventory of traded goods in Profit and Loss Account. However, the effect of change in inventory on this account

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

AJIT ABDULMAJID MAHAT,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 722/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 4. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees’ contribution to provident fund

DATWYLER PHARMA PACKAGING I P LTD,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 98/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits 3. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees‟ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees‟ contribution

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 718/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits 4. The only issue involved in both these appeals is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 719/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits 4. The only issue involved in both these appeals is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2800/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of Rs. 29,602 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 6. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective ESIC Act under Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report filed by the Appellant. Disallowance of unpaid amounts

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1141/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of Rs. 29,602 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 6. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective ESIC Act under Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report filed by the Appellant. Disallowance of unpaid amounts

S T CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2136/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 S T Co-Operative Credit V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Swargate S T Depo, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Swargate Bus Stand, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabas6856L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.08.2024 For A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause As Explained In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed Before Cit(A) & Therefore, The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & The Appeal Should Have Been Adjudicated On Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Deduction U/S 80P Was Allowable In Respect Of Interest Earned From Deposits Made By Cooperative Banks As Consistently Held By Honorable

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

delay may kindly be condoned and the case may be decided on merits. 2.1 Ld.AR further submitted on merits Assessing Officer has held that interest of Rs.40,68,448/- earned by assessee is not eligible for deduction u/sec.80P of the Act. However, ld.AR invited our attention to various decision of ITAT Pune, wherein ITAT Pune has held that interest earned