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.

236 results for “condonation of delay”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai374Mumbai325Delhi236Kolkata177Bangalore131Hyderabad68Pune63Chandigarh57Ahmedabad55Jaipur44Amritsar42Indore29Lucknow26Cochin16SC14Cuttack13Raipur12Rajkot9Surat9Jodhpur8Patna7Karnataka6Nagpur6Visakhapatnam5Guwahati5Calcutta4Allahabad2Kerala2Ranchi1Telangana1Panaji1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Jabalpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 80I74Section 143(1)68Addition to Income68Section 14751Depreciation46Disallowance43Section 143(3)42Section 153A41Section 14A33

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

ITA 2581/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

depreciation along with subsidy received by the\nrespondent-assessee. It is settled position in law as held by the\nApex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v/s. CIT 122 Taxman 562/255\nITR 273 (SC) that the Assessing Officer while computing the\nbook profit under Section 115J of the Act has only a power to\nexamine whether the books of account have

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

ITA 3084/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 236 · Page 1 of 12

...
Section 6829
Section 14827
Deduction26
ITAT Delhi
06 Jun 2025
AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

KAPIL STONE CRUSHING CO,KALKA JI, NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110002, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2697/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Minal Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal citing detailed reasons. She further stated that the delay in filing of appeal was not intentional. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009. The return of assessee was proceed by Central Processing Centre (CPC) u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred

KAPIL STONE CRUSHING CO,KALKA JI, NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI , INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2698/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Minal Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal citing detailed reasons. She further stated that the delay in filing of appeal was not intentional. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009. The return of assessee was proceed by Central Processing Centre (CPC) u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred

M/S. JAYCEES PUBLIC SCHOOL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja, & Sh. ShantanuFor Respondent: Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. DR
Section 147

condonation of delay in filing of appeal in the case of M/s Jaycees Public School for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 289/Del/2017 u/s. 147/143(30 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is most respectfully submitted that the assessee filed its return declaring Nil income on 29.09.2009 for A Y 2009-10 after claiming exemption

NTPC BHEL POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-18(2), DELHI

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

ITA 1254/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

condone the delay of 852 days in filing the appeal and admitted for adjudication. 6.The brief facts of the case are that assessee is EPC Contractor engaged to have certain preliminary site enabling assets for 6 facilitating project construction of 500MW unit Power Plant at site. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30-09-2015 declaring loss

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3049/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

depreciation be restored to the lower authorities for decision on merit. 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3051/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

depreciation be restored to the lower authorities for decision on merit. 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3050/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

depreciation be restored to the lower authorities for decision on merit. 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3048/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

depreciation be restored to the lower authorities for decision on merit. 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay

A vs. HOLIDAYS (P) LTD,NEW DELHIVS.ITO WARD - 3(4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6595/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

delay has not been condoned despite the assesee having a reasonable cause, beyond its control, for filing the appeal not in time. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in alw in dismissing the appeal in limine, without giving any finding on the merits of the case

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3901/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3902/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3903/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

CHUNNU FASHIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1311/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14 B. M. Sarin, Huf, Acit, Prop. Chunnu Fashions, Vs Circle : 32 (1) M–4, Green Park Main, New Delhi New Delhi - 110 016. Pan : Aachc6467R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271

condoned. 5. Disallowance of Depreciation of Rs. 59,41,974/- : The assessee is an HUF and was carrying on the business of manufacturing, exports and job work of readymade garments during the year under consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation and other expenses in the Profit and Loss Account during the year. The assessee has been availing various credit facilities

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2703/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2710/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2702/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4257/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4258/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI