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.

42 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 79clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai422Mumbai338Kolkata223Delhi205Ahmedabad142Karnataka136Bangalore118Hyderabad103Jaipur101Indore60Chandigarh58Surat58Pune42Rajkot41Cuttack41Calcutta41Amritsar39Raipur31Visakhapatnam31Nagpur22Lucknow22Cochin19Patna12SC8Guwahati8Telangana7Allahabad7Agra6Dehradun5Jodhpur5Panaji4Orissa4Varanasi4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Rajasthan2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A62Section 1141Section 143(3)32Addition to Income31Section 10(20)24Section 25019Section 143(1)18Exemption15Section 147

FATIMABAI HAJIMIYA KOKANI PVT TRUST.,NASHIK vs. ITO (EXEP) WARD 1, NASHIK

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

ITA 2373/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh 3 Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt. Trust Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

13
Condonation of Delay13
Section 14810
TDS9

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 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 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 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 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

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2683/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

sections 11(1)(a), 12 or 13 of the IT Act. The trust did apply its income towards the objects of the trust. The intimation u/s 143(1) was issued by the CPC, Banglore determining income of Rs.3,79,22,156/- as against NIL income returned by the assessee after claiming exemption

THE SIRUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

section 12A of the IT Act. It was further submitted before us that the assessee society/trust was provisionally registered u/s 12A of the IT Act and in this regard the provisional registration certificate dated 07.04.2022 was produced before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai. The assessee trust was also approved u/s 12A of the IT Act and copy

NILESH HIMMATRAO PATIL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1586/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1586/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nilesh Himmatrao Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), 301, Ujjwal Liberty, Pune Lane No.30/31, Ganesh Nagar, Dhayari B.O., Pune 411 041 Maharashtra Pan : Ardpp6570E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay of 65 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, no regular return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed. Based on the information in the NMS data that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.20

SHARAD PANDURANG KARDILE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2009/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2009/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 144Section 250Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub- serving

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

TUKARAM DNYANESHWAR BHALEKAR,PUNE vs. THE ITO WARD-9(1), PUNE

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

ITA 2868/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

section 139 of the Act. Information was available with the Assessing Officer that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.1,42,79,000/- in the bank account during the year. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice

MAHATMA PHULE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.321/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Mahatma Phule Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Patsanstha Ahilyanagar. Maryadit, At Post Bhingar, Nagar – Pathardi Road, Dist. Ahilyanagar- 414002. Pan : Aaaam3703B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. There Is Delay Of 79 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Haring

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

condone the delay of 79 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, Respected CIT(A)-NFAC erred confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer at Rs.82,64,267/- without appreciating the fact that

JITO MULUND CHAPTER FOUNDATION,THANE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

ITA 2528/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamorejito Mulund Chapter Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Manba House, Plot No-A 79, Vs. Road No.16, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), - 400604, Maharashtra Pan: Aafcj5968C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Gupta Department By : Shri Sandeep Sengupta, Cit Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

79, Vs. Road No.16, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), - 400604, Maharashtra PAN: AAFCJ5968C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ravi Gupta Department by : Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT Date of hearing : 02-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 23-06-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

DILIP JAWAHARLAL VARYANI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

condone the Delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Ground No.2 : 7. The Ground No.2 is reproduced here as under : “2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax. (A) NFAC Delhi, is not justified in confirming the addition solely on account of non-submission necessary information / documents during

RAVINDRA BHAUSAHEB MADHAVAI ,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

ITA 1737/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1737/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

condone the delay of 407 days and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of Builder and Land Developers. The assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 disclosing total income of Rs.8

GIRISH RATANLAL MURKYA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, JALNA

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

ITA 920/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(6)

condoned the delay but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of notice(s) of hearing by observing as under : “5. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notices dated 10.11.2022, 19.07.2023 and the final opportunity was given on 01.08.2023 and requested the appellant to file the submission by 08.08.2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 on 16.10.2010 2 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.7,12,450/-. Subsequently, he revised his return by filing revised return