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.

205 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai886Chennai802Delhi696Kolkata528Bangalore343Ahmedabad280Hyderabad280Jaipur234Pune205Chandigarh184Karnataka183Surat149Nagpur106Amritsar91Visakhapatnam85Indore84Raipur81Lucknow80Rajkot78Calcutta45Cuttack40Patna36Cochin35SC26Telangana23Jodhpur19Agra18Varanasi17Panaji14Guwahati13Allahabad12Jabalpur12Dehradun7Orissa5Rajasthan5Ranchi4Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E66Addition to Income66Section 143(3)56Section 25045Section 14840Section 15439Section 200A31Section 14729Penalty28

KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1763/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 249Section 270ASection 80P

50% of tax payable on the amount of under reported income amounting to Rs.5,72,116/- vide his order dated 15.09.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 223 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of the said delay but without any affidavit in support thereof

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 143(2)27
Deduction25
Disallowance24

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)

50,839/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 28 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the said delay and dismissed the appeal observing the delay to be inordinate and that the reasons cited by the assessee

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty of Rs.39,87,280/- levied u/s 270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty of Rs.39,87,280/- levied u/s 270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty of Rs.39,87,280/- levied u/s 270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common

PRAVIN SHRIRAM TAPARE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO 1(5) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 2186/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda (virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 269SSection 271D

section 269SS of the Act by accepting and depositing cash in his bank account. According to Ld.AO, assessee accepted deposit of ₹ 15,39,000/- and he therefore imposed penalty of ₹ 15,39,000/- u/s. 271D of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A) /NFAC. Appeal was filed with a delay of 50 days. 3 Ld.CIT

SHREE VINDHYA CAST COATERS LIMITED,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1118/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Anand Karnani (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 234E

50,800/- ITA No. 1118/PUN/2025, AY 2021-22 Ground Grounds of Appeal Tax effect No. relating to each Ground of appeal (Rs.) 1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, - the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by rejecting the condonation petition filed for delay in filing

SHREE VINDHYA CAST COATERS LIMITED,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, B.J.MARKET

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1116/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Anand Karnani (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 234E

50,800/- ITA No. 1118/PUN/2025, AY 2021-22 Ground Grounds of Appeal Tax effect No. relating to each Ground of appeal (Rs.) 1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, - the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by rejecting the condonation petition filed for delay in filing

SHREE VINDHYA CAST COATERS LIMITED,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1117/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Anand Karnani (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 234E

50,800/- ITA No. 1118/PUN/2025, AY 2021-22 Ground Grounds of Appeal Tax effect No. relating to each Ground of appeal (Rs.) 1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, - the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by rejecting the condonation petition filed for delay in filing

SHREE VINDHYA CAST COATERS LIMITED,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1121/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Anand Karnani (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 234E

50,800/- ITA No. 1118/PUN/2025, AY 2021-22 Ground Grounds of Appeal Tax effect No. relating to each Ground of appeal (Rs.) 1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, - the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by rejecting the condonation petition filed for delay in filing

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

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 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 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 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

VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

50,00,000/- taking into consideration the provisions of 1st proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the ITA, 1961. As such the appellant contends that, the present re- assessment proceedings are bad in law and ought to be quashed. 4. Learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and in rejecting appellant's appeal, on account of the delay

SURESH DATTATRAY GURAV,BAVDHAN PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

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

ITA 2172/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2172/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suresh Dattatray Gurav, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.5, Mangesh Garden, S Ward-2(3), Nashik. Bavdhan Khurd, Mulshi, Pune – 411021. Pan: Aaypg3217D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshal Nasikkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Add.Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16; dated 23.11.2021. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay made by the appellant in the appropriate

LATE VISHWAS GAJMAL SONAWANE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

50,680/-. Ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 17.10.2019 u/s.143 r.w.s.147 of the Act accepted the returned income declared by the assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed Rectification application u/s.154 of the Act contending that capital gain on sale of Agricultural Land has been wrongly computed at the time of filing the return as it is not a capital asset

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 894/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 147Section 250

condone the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated