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 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh54Indore22Bangalore12Pune9Surat9Delhi8Mumbai6Ahmedabad6Jaipur5Chennai4Nagpur3Hyderabad3Agra2Kolkata2Rajkot2Patna1Amritsar1Punjab & Haryana1Raipur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1SC1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 54B19Section 26313Section 271(1)(c)9Deduction7Addition to Income7Section 44A6Section 143(3)5Condonation of Delay5Section 1474

MR. ADIT RATHI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 411/PUN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 54B

section 54B deduction claim. The same stands deleted. 5. No other grounds have been raised or pressed before us. 6. Delay of 70 days in filing is condoned

NARAYANSINGH PATIL,BHUSAWAL vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, NASIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 32/PUN/2021[-]Status: Disposed
Section 2503
Exemption3
Business Income3
ITAT Pune
28 Nov 2022

Bench: Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.32/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Naryansingh Dongarsingh Patil, The Principal Khalchi Galli, Near Motha Maruti Vs Commissioner Of Mandir Sakari Deepnagar, Income Tax-2,Nashik. Bhusawal – 425307. Pan: Bglpp 3996 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms. J R Chandekar – Ar Revenue By Shri M. M. Chate –Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Nashik, Dated 30.03.2020For The A.Y. 2015-16 Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pr. Cit Was Not Justified In Holding The Assessment Order Of Pr. Cit-2, Nashik As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest The Interest Of Revenue Within The Meaning Of S. 263 Of The Act. Since On The Facts & Law S. 263 Does Not Apply The Order Passed By Pr. Cit-2 Nashik Be Quashed & Set Aside.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 69B

54B of the Act. In view of this the order of the A.O. was neither erroneous not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. As such the order passed by Pr. CIT-2 Nashik under section 263 is not sustainable in law. It be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAVINDRA SAMBHAJIRAO THORAT,AHMADNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 2, , PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 108/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.108/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ravindra Sambhajirao Vs. Pr.Cit-2, Pune. Thorat, Krushi Bhavan Near S. R. Thorat Dairy, Gunjalwadi, Rajapur Road, Tal: Sangamner, Dist: Ahmednagar- 422605. Pan : Aaipt3922G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Arises Against The Pr. Cit-2, Pune’S Order Dated 18.12.2020 Passed In Case No. Pn/Pcit-2/263/Rst/2020-21/1177, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. The Assessee’S As Well As Revenue’S Detailed Paper Books Stand Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Claiming Himself To Be Aggrieved Against The Learned Pcit’S

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 54B

section 54B deduction provisions gets attracted when the assessee concern transfers the original asset which is a capital asset; being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used for agricultural purposes. We sought to know from learned counsel as to whether the Assessing Officer had ever asked the assessee

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

SANJAY NAMDEV TILEKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Row House No.6, Manjari Green, Manjari Stud Farm, Phase One, Pune- 412307. Pan : Ahwpt3174F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly With 281 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Along With Death Certificate Of His Wife, Praying For Condonation Of Delay Of 281 Days In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 54BSection 55A

delay of 281 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in not deciding the issue on the merits of the case, this action

SUSHMA PRAMOD NIMHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

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

ITA 1513/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Prakik B. SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in not granting sufficient opportunities of hearing and dismissing the appeal exparte. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

SH PRAVINCHANDRA WALCHAND SHAH,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 296/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.296/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Pravinchandra Walchand The Pr.Cit, Nashik-1. Shah, Vs 19, Sumati Society, Sharanpur . Road, Shastri Nagar, Nashik – 422002. Pan: Acmps 2997L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Ar Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nashik-1’S Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031448193(1), In Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

54B deduction and the Assessing Officer had nowhere examined the foregoing unregistered documents or transfer; as the case may be, for the purpose of correct computation thereof. We therefore conclude that the Pr.CIT revision jurisdiction has been rightly exercised in the facts of the instant case. The same stands upheld. 7. Learned counsel at this stage invited our attention