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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Chennai410Mumbai323Kolkata213Delhi201Ahmedabad143Karnataka136Bangalore111Hyderabad107Jaipur103Pune103Chandigarh77Surat58Indore56Cuttack47Visakhapatnam43Calcutta41Amritsar40Raipur32Rajkot28Lucknow26Nagpur22Cochin21Patna10Agra8Guwahati8SC8Telangana7Allahabad7Dehradun5Jodhpur5Orissa4Varanasi4Panaji4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Rajasthan2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A53Addition to Income40Section 1136Section 143(3)32Condonation of Delay24Section 10(20)20Survey u/s 133A19Section 25017Section 143(1)

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

15
Section 14713
Exemption13
Section 14412

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

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 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

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

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

MAHESH RAMKISAN RATHI,,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - II,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1334/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 72

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is an individual stated to be partner in M/s. Rathi Estates which is engaged in the business of dealing in real estate. Assessee electronically filed its return of income

SUDHAKAR DEVAPPA MANERE,,ICHALKARANJI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1322/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1322/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR

delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. (Refer Dy. CIT vs. BMC Software (India)(P) Ltd., ITAT Pune Bench reported as (2015) 172 TTJ (Pune) 692. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the source of the investment made by the appellant during the year under appeal

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SUDHAKAR DEVAPPA MANARE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1223/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1322/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR

delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. (Refer Dy. CIT vs. BMC Software (India)(P) Ltd., ITAT Pune Bench reported as (2015) 172 TTJ (Pune) 692. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the source of the investment made by the appellant during the year under appeal

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

M/S. V.S. JOSHI & ASSOCIATES,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.477/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 154Section 80I

delay be condoned. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of Civil Construction. Assessee filed the return of income on 29-09-2012 declaring total income of Rs.4,25,620/-. During the year

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

KEDAR PRAKASH VANJAPE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1293/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1293/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 144

condoning the delay in filing the appeal late against the assessment order and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee is also aggrieved by the additions made by the Assessing Officer under the ex-parte order, which was upheld by CIT(A). 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed

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

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

KARIMKHAN SHAHNOORKHAN PATEL,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2272/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 50C

delay of 278 days in filing of appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 3 ITA No. 2272/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 3. The brief facts of case as emanating from records are : The assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year on 28-07-2009 declaring total income of Rs.1

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