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.

131 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai206Pune131Mumbai129Kolkata102Hyderabad55Delhi51Bangalore44Amritsar38Jaipur35Ahmedabad31Cuttack28Visakhapatnam27Indore19Lucknow16Raipur14Chandigarh9Surat6Cochin6Rajkot6Patna5Nagpur4Agra2Calcutta2SC2Allahabad1Dehradun1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A30Addition to Income23Section 143(3)21Section 10(20)20Section 1120Section 40A(3)19Disallowance9Section 2638Section 143(1)

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

40A (2) of the Act. The assessee i.e NLT had received services from TACL in respect of which payment had been made as per documentary evidence on record and thus, there was no warrant for disallowance paid to TACL by the assessee when the payment was adjudged on the principle of commercial expediency when viewed from the point of view

Showing 1–20 of 131 · Page 1 of 7

7
Deduction7
TDS7
Exemption6

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

SHRI TULJA BHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,OSMANABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED

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

ITA 1297/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED vs. SHRI TULJABHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD, OSMANABAD

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED vs. SHRI TULJABHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD, OSMANABAD

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

ITA 1022/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

ACIT, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJIVANI [ TAKLI ] SSK LTD, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 959/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SANJIVANI (TAKLI) SSK LTD.,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. CIT, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 988/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SHRI TULJA BHAVANI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,OSMANABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED

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

ITA 1296/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi for Sl. No.1 & 2For Respondent: Shri/s Neeraj Bansal for Sl. No.1, 2 &

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SIDHESHWAR SAH. SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT, S.R.-2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1210/PUN/1997[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay of 49 days. 19. Briefly, the common issue in this bunch of appeals is the payment of excessive cane price to farmers on purchase of sugarcane by S.S.K. to the farmers. The assessee Co-operative societies had purchased sugarcane and crushed the ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors 15 Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. & Ors same for manufacture of sugar. The assessee

SHRI DUDHGANGA VEDGANGA SAH: SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1090/PUN/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay of 49 days. 19. Briefly, the common issue in this bunch of appeals is the payment of excessive cane price to farmers on purchase of sugarcane by S.S.K. to the farmers. The assessee Co-operative societies had purchased sugarcane and crushed the ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors 15 Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. & Ors same for manufacture of sugar. The assessee

VITHAL RAO SHINDE SSK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1160/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay of 49 days. 19. Briefly, the common issue in this bunch of appeals is the payment of excessive cane price to farmers on purchase of sugarcane by S.S.K. to the farmers. The assessee Co-operative societies had purchased sugarcane and crushed the ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors 15 Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. & Ors same for manufacture of sugar. The assessee

DY.CIT, CIR.-3(1), DHULE, DHULE vs. SHIRPUR SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,, DAHIWAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 550/PUN/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay of 49 days. 19. Briefly, the common issue in this bunch of appeals is the payment of excessive cane price to farmers on purchase of sugarcane by S.S.K. to the farmers. The assessee Co-operative societies had purchased sugarcane and crushed the ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors 15 Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. & Ors same for manufacture of sugar. The assessee

SHRI CHH SAHU SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1285/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay of 49 days. 19. Briefly, the common issue in this bunch of appeals is the payment of excessive cane price to farmers on purchase of sugarcane by S.S.K. to the farmers. The assessee Co-operative societies had purchased sugarcane and crushed the ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors 15 Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. & Ors same for manufacture of sugar. The assessee

SHRI VITHAL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1270/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay of 49 days. 19. Briefly, the common issue in this bunch of appeals is the payment of excessive cane price to farmers on purchase of sugarcane by S.S.K. to the farmers. The assessee Co-operative societies had purchased sugarcane and crushed the ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors 15 Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. & Ors same for manufacture of sugar. The assessee

SHRI CHH SAHU SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1284/PUN/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay of 49 days. 19. Briefly, the common issue in this bunch of appeals is the payment of excessive cane price to farmers on purchase of sugarcane by S.S.K. to the farmers. The assessee Co-operative societies had purchased sugarcane and crushed the ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors 15 Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. & Ors same for manufacture of sugar. The assessee