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.

120 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai256Kolkata150Delhi149Pune120Mumbai96Bangalore77Nagpur59Hyderabad52Jaipur47Ahmedabad36Cuttack31Indore30Chandigarh27Surat26Lucknow25Visakhapatnam22Amritsar21Cochin12Raipur11Guwahati10Allahabad9Jodhpur7Varanasi6Calcutta3Rajkot3Patna3SC3Panaji1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)61Section 43B58Section 139(1)35Section 143(1)32Section 12A30Addition to Income26Disallowance25Deduction21Section 143(3)20

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

condone the delay of 798 and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed the Return of Income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 27.09.2019 disclosing total income of Rs.19,48,890/-. Return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) vide intimation

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

Showing 1–20 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

Section 10(20)20
Section 1120
Limitation/Time-bar14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S SHIRODE AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 501/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2021AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.501/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 72

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 M/s. Shirode Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 3. Tersely stated, the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee is engaged in the business of sales and service of two wheelers and tractors. A return was filed declaring total income of Rs.30,48,700/-. During the course

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 612/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

delay is condoned. 5. First, we shall take up the appeal of assessee in ITA No.610/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2006-07 to adjudicate the issue raised in all the appeals, which is identical. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in passing re-assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 614/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

delay is condoned. 5. First, we shall take up the appeal of assessee in ITA No.610/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2006-07 to adjudicate the issue raised in all the appeals, which is identical. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in passing re-assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 611/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

delay is condoned. 5. First, we shall take up the appeal of assessee in ITA No.610/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2006-07 to adjudicate the issue raised in all the appeals, which is identical. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in passing re-assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 613/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

delay is condoned. 5. First, we shall take up the appeal of assessee in ITA No.610/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2006-07 to adjudicate the issue raised in all the appeals, which is identical. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in passing re-assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 610/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

delay is condoned. 5. First, we shall take up the appeal of assessee in ITA No.610/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2006-07 to adjudicate the issue raised in all the appeals, which is identical. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in passing re-assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

MINILEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1147/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 8. Before me, on the merits of issue, it was submitted that the issue involved in the appeal was with respect to non-granting of deduction of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund u/s 43B of the Act. He submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment